guest: $5 million paid host: $5 million. it goes to charities that -- host: $5 million toward where does it go to? guest: it goes to children that banned -- charities that benefit children. >> that is tonight, and i cut p.m. eastern. we will take you live next the campus of georgetown university in washington, d.c., where secretary of state hillary clinton will speak about energy diplomacy and u.s. foreign policy. she is expected to speak about u.s. energy interests, clean [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> this is georgetown university, waiting to hear from secretary of state hillary clinton about u.s. policy and diplomacy mission beyond away surely. we have another news conference about 2:00 p.m. there panetta and petraeus will be briefing reporters about some financial challenges. she will be at the news conference this afternoon to report some of the findings and a new report that is coming looking specifically at military service members student loan debt. that is expected to start at 2:00 p.m. eastern. we will show that with you for joining in progress after this event with secretary of state hillary clinton.

>> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the dean and secretary of state hillary rodham clinton. [cheers and applause] >> i don't think i have ever

heard more noise in this room than right now. [laughter] >> good afternoon. it is my great privilege and honor to welcome back to the hilltop secretary of state hillary rodham clinton. we are very proud to think of her as a hooya by marriage. [laughter] as always, i would like to welcome our students, faculty and staff with this today. in case you didn't hear them. secretary clinton has come to embody the georgetown spirit of public service in nearly 40 years of public service. first lady, senator, and now the nation's chief diplomat. as many of you know, in this

last will, secretary clinton has traveled to over 100 countries and flown over 900,000 miles, making her the most troubled secretary of state in history. i think i speak for all this when i say it is a pleasure to welcome her back to georgetown. since taking office, secretary clinton has tackled some of the most pressing issues facing our country, including the future of energy diplomacy. at the conclusion of her remarks today on this topic, secretary clinton will take questions from the audience. now, please come and join me in welcoming the 67th secretary of state of the united states, the hon. hillary rodham clinton. [cheers and applause] >> thank you.

thank you. it is wonderful to be back here at georgetown and at one of the most beautiful the news, not only in washington, but anywhere, to have this chance to talk with you about an issue that will definitely shape your future. and to share with you some thoughts about what that actually means. as the lancaster said, i am a hoya by marriage. i am so proud to be that and so grateful for the extraordinary contribution that the school of foreign service makes to the state department. we are in reached every single day, dean lancaster, but the work and scholarship that goes on here at this great university.

so i came here because it is not only that young people have a great state in our policies at home and abroad about energy, but because we all have to work together to find answers to some of the challenges that it poses. energy cuts across the entirety of u.s. foreign policy. it is a matter of national security and global stability. it is at the heart of the global economy. it is also an issue of democracy and human rights. and it has been a top concern of mine for years, but certainly these last four years as secretary of state, and it is sure to be the same for the next secretary. so here today, i want to talk about the vast changes taking place regarding energy worldwide and what they will mean for us.

america is objective for our energy security and our progress in other places is critical. and the steps that we are taking to try to achieve those objectives are ones that i want briefly to outline to you. but let me start with the basics. energy matters to america's foreign policy for three fundamental reasons. first, it rests at the core of geopolitics because fundamentally energy is an issue of wealth and power. which means it can be both a source of conflict and cooperation. the united states has an interest in resolving disputes over energy, keeping energy supplies and markets stable through all manner of global crises, ensuring that countries don't use their energy resources or proximity to shipping routes to force others

to bend to their will or forgive their bad behavior. and above all, making sure that the american people's access to energy is secure, reliable, affordable, and sustainable. second coming energy is essential to how we will power our economy and manage our environment in the 21st century. we have an interest in promoting new technologies and sources of energy, especially including renewable to reduce pollution, to diversify the global energy supply, to create jobs, and to address the very real threat of climate change. and third, energy is key to economic development and political stability. we have an interest in the 1.3 billion people worldwide who don't have access to energy.

we believe the more they can access power, the better their chances of starting a business is committed to keeping their children come increasing their income, joining the global economy. all of which is good for them and for us. and because corruption is often a factor in energy poverty as well as political instability, we have an interest in supporting leaders who invest their nation's energy wealth back into their economies instead of hoarding it for themselves. so these are the issues that i want to talk with you about today. but before i do, i will quickly add that many of you, especially students of history, note that these challenges are not new. countries have been fighting over resources for centuries. humankind has always been on the

hunt for new and better sources of energy. and yet this is a moment of profound change and one that raises complex questions about the direction we are heading. right now, for example, in a dramatic reversal, developing countries are consuming more of the world's energy than developed countries. china and india costs energy needs are growing rapidly along with their it -- china and india is energy needs are growing rapidly along with their economies. there has been a surge in natural gas, lessening the world's dependence on oil. technology has developed to the point where we can drill for oil and gas in places like the arctic and the south china sea, opening up new opportunities, but also raising questions about

our environment and catalyzing sources of tension. who will benefit from these changes? where will we get the energy to meet the world growing needs? how can we make sure that the institutions that kept global energy markets well supplied in the 20th-century, like the international energy agency, which the united states helped to create after the oil crisis in the 1970's, continued to be relevant and effective in the 21st century? and then, of course, there are changes here at home that affect the international energy outlook. many americans don't yet realize the gains that the united states have made. our use of renewable wind and solar power has doubled in the past four years. our oil and natural gas production is surging. new auto standards will double

how far we drive on a gallon of gas. and for the first time, we have introduced fuel efficiency standards for heavy trucks, vans and buses, all of which will cut costs. that means we are less reliant on imported energy, which strengthens our global political and economic standing and the world energy marketplace. we all know that energy sparks a great deal of debate in our country. but from my vantage point as the secretary of state, outside of the domestic debate, the important thing to keep in mind is a dark country is not and cannot be an island when it comes to energy markets. oil markets are global and natural gas markets are moving in that direction. many power grids span national boundaries, and even when americans are using oil

produced entirely within the united states. the price of that allele is largely determined by the global marketplace -- the price of that oil is largely determined by the global marketplace. security calls for us to make progress at home and abroad and that requires american leadership. one year ago this week, after a major strategic review of our nation's diplomacy and development efforts, the state department opened a new bureau did it is called the bureau of energy resources and it is led by my special envoy and coordinator for international energy affairs, ambassador carlos pascual, who is here today. the bureau is charged with leading diplomatic efforts on energy. i will be sending policy guidance to every u.s. embassy

worldwide come instructing them to elevate their reporting on energy issues and pursue more outreach to private sector energy partners. now make no mistake. in the past, the state department obviously conducted energy-related diplomacy, sometimes a great deal of it when specific crises arose. but we did not have a team of experts dedicated full time to thinking creatively about how we can solve challenges and seize opportunities and now we do. that come in and of itself, is a signal of a broader commitment by the united states to lead in shaping the global energy future. and, by the way, dean lankester, six members of the state department's energy team are graduates of georgetown university and they are here today with me as well. so thank you, georgetown. [applause]

that is a shameless pitch for the foreign service and the state department. [laughter] we are working in partnership with the department of energy which helps to ship domestic energy policies and work closely with energy ministries around the world. the energy department's national labs are at the cutting edge of innovation and it has a great deal of technical expertise, which brings to bear -- which it brings to bear globally. its work home and abroad is critical because the strong route domestic energy policies and the more we advance science and deliver technical help to our partners, the better positioned we are as a government and certainly the role that the state department place to help chart a long-term path to stability, prosperity and peace. let me speak just briefly about the three pillars of our global energy strategy. first, regarding the geopolitics

of energy, we are focused on energy diplomacy. some of our energy diplomacy is related to issues in the headlines. you may have read about heated disputes over territorial claims in the south china sea. well, why do you think that is happening? there are potentially significant quantities of oil and gas resources right next door to countries with fast- growing energy needs. and you can see why, at times, the situation is becoming quite tense. we are supporting efforts by the parties themselves to adopt a clear code of conduct to manage those potential resources without conflict. some of our energy diplomacy is focused on remote in areas like the arctic, a frontier of up and explode -- of unexplored oil and

deposits and potential tragedy. it is critical that we now act to set rules of the road to avoid conflict over those resources and protect the arctic's fragile ecosystem. we are working to strengthen the arctic council, which includes all eight arctic nations, including the united states, so that it can promote effective cooperation. last summer, i went above the arctic circle in norway to where the new secretariat of the arctic council will be based in order to discuss these issues, which, four years ago, did not have much currency. but today, they are seen as increasingly important. another focus of our energy diplomacy is helping to promote competition and prevent monopolies. consider what has been happening

in europe. for decades, many european nations received much of their natural gas via pipeline from one country, russia. few other sources were available. but that is now changed in part because of the increase production here in the united states. there is a lot more natural gas in the global market looking for a home. plus there is natural gas in the caspian and in central asia. they would like to sell it and europe would like to buy it. but first, they need to build pipelines. and that is the goal of a project called the southern corridor which would stretch across the european continent. the united states has been an active partner to all those participants to help move this project to fruition. now why have we done this? well, we want to see countries grow and have strong economies, but also because energy monopolies create risks appeared

anywhere in the world, when one nation is overly dependent on another for its energy, that can jeopardize its political and economic independence. it can make a country will hon. to threats and coercion. that is why nato has identified energy security as a key security issue of our time. it is also why we created the u.s.-european union energy council to deepen our cooperation on strategic energy issues. it is not just a matter of economic competition, as important as that is. it is also a matter of national and international security. security is also at the heart of perhaps the most important energy diplomacy we have conducted in the obama administration. i am sure you know that the united states and the european union and other light-minded

countries, as well as the united nations, have imposed sanctions on iran as part of our dual track diplomatic effort to persuade, compel iran to stop its pursuit of a nuclear weapon. you may also know that a major target of these sanctions is iran's oil industry. what you mean i know, because it does not make headlines, is how much painstaking diplomacy went into making these sanctions first adopted and then effective. first, we needed to convince consumers of iranian oil to stop or significantly reduce their purchases. that was at a time when demand for energy is high. many countries understandably were worried that reducing their purchases would put them in a very difficult position. so at the same time, we reached

out to other major oil producers to encourage them to increase production so countries would be able to find alternative sources of oil. that was further helped by the fact that, here in the united states, we increased oil production by nearly 700,000 barrels a day. and we engaged countries on the benefits of diversifying their energy supply as a national security matter. the approach has worked. the be you put an oil embargo in place in july -- the eu put an oil embargo in place in july. many have significantly cut or completely ended their purchases of iranian oil. we have been able to put unprecedented pressure on iran while minimizing the burden on the rest of the world. this strategy influenced our engagement in other places, too. for example, sudan and south

sudan, where the oil had stopped flowing and getting it going again mattered to both of them and to us. both countries' economies depend on oil. most of the oil lies in the new country of south sudan. but, in order to export that oil, south sudan needs pipelines and ports which sudan controls. the two countries were fighting over how much money south sudan would pay to sudan to use that infrastructure. they were so far apart that a compromise seemed impossible. so the united states stepped up our engagement in support of the african union and the united nations to avoid a return to war between the two countries to help boost their economies and to restart oil production at a critical moment for the world oil supply. this past august, i flew to the

capital of south sudan to urge the parties to recognize that a percentage of something is better than a percentage of nothing. and a month later, they signed a cooperation agreement and it was ratified by the two parliaments this week. the situation is still fragile and there are many other difficulties that they have to work out between themselves. but this was a step forward and i want to commend both sides for their leadership and courage. we have also worked intensively to support iraq's energy sector. in 2010, iraq produced about 2.3 million barrels of oil each day. today, that number is 3.2 million. and iraq is now the no. 2 oil producer in opec, surpassing iran. this is a major iraqi success

story, helped by the departments of state and energy. we work with the iraqis to identify bottlenecks in their infrastructure to improve their investment plans and get more oil to the market. and there is no question that iraq cost increase production has helped stabilize the oil markets at this pivotal moment and provides a foundation for a stronger economy to benefit the iraqi people. let me mention one additional diplomatic challenge we're focused on, how to manage resources that cross national boundaries. boundaries are not always clearly delineated, especially at sea. if oil or gas is discovered in an area two countries share or where boundaries are inexact, how will they develop it? earlier this year, after a long negotiation led by the state department, the united states and mexico reached a ground- breaking agreement on what oil

and gas resources in the gulf of mexico. and we will be sending it to congress for action soon. the agreement clearly lays out how the united states and mexico will manage the resources that transcend our maritime boundary. in addition to these examples of energy diplomacy, we are also focused on our secondary of engagement, energy transformation. helping to promote new energy solutions, including renewable and energy efficiency, to meet rising demand, diversify the global energy supply, and address climate change. the transformation to cleaner energy is central to reducing the world's carbon emissions. and it is the core of a strong 21st century global economy. but we know very well that energy transformation cannot be accomplished by governments

alone. in the next 25 years, the world will need up to $15 trillion in investments to generate and transmit electricity. governments can and will provide some of it, but most will come from the private sector. that is not only a huge challenge, but a huge opportunity. and i want to make sure that american companies and american workers are competing for those kinds of projects. after all, american companies are leaders across the field of energy, leaders in renewable, high-tech, smart grid, energy infrastructure, bioenergy, energy efficiency. in coming decades, american companies should have a chance to do much more business worldwide. and by doing so, they will help to create american jobs. governments can do several

things to promote energy transformation, like educator citizens about the value of energy efficiency and clean technology. but perhaps the most important thing we can do is in at policies that create an enabling environment that attracts investment and paves the way for large-scale infrastructure. in many parts of central america and africa, and in india and pakistan, u.s. aid supports training programs to put power utilities on founder -- on sounder commercial footing and the millennium challenge corp. is creating new contracts with companies that will undertake wholesale systemic energy reform. and with the right business climate, agencies like the export-import bank and the overseas private investment corporation can help seal the deals that will allow u.s. exports to flow. as an example, let me tell you

what we're doing with our neighbors in latin america. earlier this year, at the summit of the americas, colombia launched a new initiative it is leading with the united states called connecting the americas 2022. it aims to achieve universal access to electricity by the year 2022 through electrical interconnection in the hemisphere. linking electrical grids throughout the hemisphere, from canada all the way down to the southern tip of chile, as well as extending it to the caribbean. the inter-american development bank, the world bank, all of the countries in the organization of american states have joined this project could it stems from a broader effort called the energy and climate partnership of the americas which i launched in 2010, which has sparked a wave of innovative partnerships

across the hemisphere. interconnection will help us get the most out of our region's resources. it seems simple that, if one country has excess power, it can sell it to a neighbor. but climate variability in our region means that, it one country has a strong rainy season, it can export hydro power to a neighbor in the middle of a drought. plus, by expanding the size of power markets, we can create economies of scale, attract more private investment, lower capital costs, and ultimately lower the cost for the consumer. there is another bowl here as well. 31 million people across the americas lack access to reliable and affordable electricity. that clearly hold them back from making progress in so many areas. so one in of connect 2022 is to

make sure that those 31 million people now do have power. with this single project, we will promote energy efficiency and renewable energy, fight poverty, create opportunity for energy businesses, including u.s. businesses, and forge stronger ties a partnership with our neighbors. it really is a win-win-win in our opinion. there is another aspect of energy transformation that i think is important to mention. to achieve the levels of private sector involvement that we need, it takes a level playing field. so all companies can compete. but you know very well, in some parts of the world, the playing field is hardly level. some countries dictate how much national content must be used in energy production or they get subsidies to their nation's companies to give them an edge. and that can be very

challenging for american businesses to break through. so everyday, in many parts of the world, our diplomats are out there fighting on behalf of american businesses and workers, taking aim at economic barriers and unfair practices. this september, we achieved a major breakthrough. the member nations of the pacific economic cooperation community agreed to cut tariffs on 54 key environmental goods, clearing the way for more trade in clean energy technology. at the same time that we are pursuing energy transformation, however, we have to pick on the issue of energy poverty. that is the third area of engagement i will mention. for those 1.3 billion people worldwide who do not have access to reliable, sustainable supply of energy, it is a daily challenge and struggle. it also runs counter to energy

transformation because these people are burning fire wood, coal, dong, charcoal, what ever they can get their hands on. they're using diesel generators and no electricity is more expensive than that. and besides, these are dirty forms of energy. bad for people's health, bad for the environment. but it does not have to be that way. we have the technology and know- how that can help people leapfrog to energy that is not only reliable and affordable, but clean and efficient. so energy transformation and ending energy poverty really go hand-in-hand. the united nations has lost sustainable energy for all, which aims to do three things could achieve universal access to modern energy by the year

2030, double both the global rate of improvement and energy efficiency and the share of renewable energy in the cobol energy mix. this year, companies and development latencies have committed more than $50 billion in financing for sustainable energy. if -- and that is a big if -- governments create the right commercial environment. more than 60 countries in africa, asia, and latin america have begun action plans to bring energy investors to their markets. these investments will lower the high prices that many poor people pay today as well as increasing access to sustainable energy and opening new markets for american businesses. the united states has another initiative to tackle the pernicious aspect of energy poverty. cookstoves. nearly 3 billion people, that is

almost half the world's population, don't have access to modern cooking technology. they just have fires, often inside their homes, which cause toxic air pollution, killing nearly two million people, mostly women and children, every year. think about that. millions dying because of something as simple, as ordinary, as vital to their survival as the stove. that is a problem that we are calling on the world to help us solve. three years ago, i launched the globe alliance for clean cookstoves, which is working with foundations, private companies and other governments to get clean and a portable stoves into 100 million homes worldwide by the end of this decade. and finally, we are focused on a key factor in the energy poverty and political instability,

poor governance. history tells a frustrating tell, countries that are rich with energy resources often have less democracy, more economic instability, more frequent civil wars. they are far more likely to be ruled by dictators and oil can emboldened the dictators to start conflicts with other countries. it is often called the resourced curse. but the resources are not the problem. it is agreed. their resources can be used to transform the country's future for the better, but only if their use the right way for the right purposes. so we need to work to undo the resourced curse, especially now as demand for energy guarantees that more developing countries will become will exporters. some countries that recently discovered oil reserves are liberia, sierra leone, mozambique.

not long ago, they were all embroiled in deadly conflicts. their political situations are still fragile. so these need support to ensure that their energy resources don't end up causing more suffering and trouble than good. so the united states is working with eight new oil and gas producing countries to put into place the building blocks of good governance, including political institutions, transparent finances, and effective laws and regulations. in uganda, for example, we're helping the government adopt strong environmental protection laws and regulations because of oil and gas development is happening in ecologically fragile areas. we're also increasing our support for the extractive industries and transparency initiative, an international program that promotes transparency and accountability in the oil-gas and mining

industries. a year ago, president obama announced that the united states joined this organization as a signal of our commitment to this issue and we are only the second developed country to do so. through the carbon lugar amendment, united states is the only country in world requiring that our extractive industries companies disclose any payments they made to any government worldwide, an important step in the fight against corruption. so the message we are sending to all of these efforts with energy related disputes to cooperate more with their neighbors on expanding electricity is this. the united states is convinced that energy in all of its complexity will continue to be one of the defining issues of the 21st century and we are reshaping our foreign policy to reflect that. this is a moment of profound

change. countries that once were not major consumers are. countries that used to depend on others for their energy are now producers. how will this shape world events? who will benefit and who will not? how will it affect the climate? people's economic conditions? the strength of young democracies? all of this is still unknown. the answers to these questions are being written now and we intend to play a major role in writing them. we have no choice. we have to be involved everywhere in the world. the future security and prosperity of our nation and the rest of the world hangs in the balance. and all of us, and especially all of you here today, have a stake in the outcome. so whatever you are sitting here at georgetown, i hope you will

follow this issue and maybe even consider becoming engaged. because the challenges i briefly outlined will only grow more urgent in the years ahead and we need all the smart people we can possibly muster working to solve them. this will take our nation's best minds, our most talented public servants, our most innovative entrepreneurs, and millions of dedicated citizens. but i believe that we are up to the challenge, that we can, working together, secure a better future when it comes to energy supply and energy sustainability. and a future that, by meeting those two objectives, provides greater dignity and opportunities for all and protect the planet we all share at the same time. thank you very much. [applause]

>> thank you. the secretary is able to take a couple of questions. and so, i would like to invite our students to ask those questions. for those of you who have a question to ask, you might lineup at the microphone in the center aisle good when you ask your question -- i said a couple. it will only be a few. i would like to introduce yourself. >> good afternoon, mr. secretary.

there is no denying that oil is still a very critical part of energy and foreign policy in the united states increasing interaction between russia and iraq, including oil contracts and weapons deals and a seeming allies there, should the united states to be concerned of losing iraq to other parts of the world, specifically including russia, as an energy source? >> that is an excellent question. and i think the answer is no. i think that iraq's oil will enter the global marketplace. when any nations will enters the marketplace, there are deals made -- where it will go, with the conditions of contracts will be. but remember that russia is a very significant producer of oil and gas itself. so i think the russian companies that will be exploring for oil under new contracts, just like american companies and french

companies and italian and chinese and all who are competing for what is, as i said, the second-largest oil production market in the world today, will be operating within the economic framework that the global marketplace sets. so i think that the iraqis have come a far distance in trying to increase their production. but they have a lot of work still to do to try to improve and modernize their infrastructure and to create a hydrocarbon law that will determine the distribution of the money brought to the country because of the sale of oil. and as you may know, it has been a bone of contention between baghdad and urbiil between, the government in baghdad and the

government of the kurdish area in the north. so all of this is quite unsettled. but i don't think that there is any one element or any one country that will dictate the outcome could i think this is up to the iraqis and we have been urging that they make decisions that are in the best interest of all the iraqi people. they have to get electricity to all of the iraqis that is reliable and affordable. they have a lot of work ahead of them, but i think there is a good basis now with the kind of oil reserves that they have and the production levels they have reached to deal with their own internal domestic needs first and foremost. >> good afternoon, madam secretary. i am a freshman year at the school's foreign service. i was wondering, in light of environmental and security concerns, what role do you believe nuclear power should

play in the future of global energy. >> great question, too. i think that nuclear power will remain a component of the energy supply globally. currently, the united states, last time i looked, it is about 20% of our energy. but a lot of those nuclear plants are aging and a lot of them will have to go up for real licensing. around the world, there is coming in some parts of the world, a rejection of nuclear power. we are seeing that in germany and japan, for example. other parts of the world, even in the u.k., there is a new effort to increase the amount of energy obtained from nuclear power. and i think you know well that there are great trade-offs. you could put a line down the middle of the page and make the comparisons. there is an argument that it is

a better form of energy for the world because it does not have greenhouse gas emissions. it is also a very expensive form of energy to produce. so i think you will see over time a sorting out of the benefits and costs, the dangers and the possible fixes for those dangers, being worked out around the world. i would just say three things. one, we now know that there has to be higher levels of safety for nuclear reactor plants. and we therefore need to hold ourselves and the rest of the world to a high standard if countries will be using nuclear power. secondly, i think it is very important that we do more research ourselves in the united states, but also with like-

minded countries around the world, to ensure that the cost of building plants will actually be recovered in a realistic time frame. because, remember, in our own country and elsewhere, governments have to heavily subsidize the construction and operation of nuclear plants because it is incredibly expensive. so what are the costs and benefits on a financial level and how does one deal with that? and finally, i think it is assument that we don't that there is any single answer for our energy needs. we have to invest more in all forms of energy and that is why i think, as you look at the trade-off with nuclear energy and you think about how much money it takes to build a

plant and to ensure its safety, what a comparable -- would a comparable amount of money be better spent in a renewable form of energy? i am not stating any conclusions. i am just saying that this has to be a very thoughtful discussion in our country and elsewhere. >> thank you very much. >> good afternoon, mrs. clinton. it is truly a great honor to see you here only too much into my academic journey. it is amazing. i came over from israel. my question is regarding my region and the field we just discussed here. i was wondering what was your administration doing to try to solve the crisis of the natural gas between israel and egypt and also the joint projects of energy resources in the middle east between israel and jordan and how that comes to play with everything you said. >> 3 home-run questions from

three freshmen. [laughter] the united states is very supportive of efforts in the middle east to try to work out some of the challenges to the production and exporting of energy. and i think you know from having been in his real that israel has made some significant finds of natural gas off its coastline. potential forhe such new energy sources of cyprus, off the lead the non -- off of lebanon and we have been working diplomatically that everyone work out their boundaries. that is one of the points i was making. there's often overlapping claims and those overlapping

claims, unless they are resolved, stand in the way of the commercial exploitation of what ever the reserves might be. so it is in everyone's interest to try to make sure that everybody knows where the boundaries are and people are then able to let contracts that legally recognized to see what potential is available. similarly, with respect to the pipeline, as you know, the pipeline from egypt has been sabotaging numerous times in the last 18 months. the government of egypt has been very concerned about trying to keep it flowing and going. but i think israel and jordan have faced the reality that they have to look for other sources because they cannot rely on the pipeline that may not be reliable because it goes through some very dangerous terrain and with not much chance that it will be monitored.

so i think both jordan and israel, along with egypt, which is looking for additional sources to meet their own domestic demand, everybody in the region is in the same frame of mind. they need more reliable energy sources, some of which they may be able to produce independently, domestically, but some of which they will have to work out agreements with neighbors. and that is difficult in the region. but the united states has certainly deployed a lot of diplomatic assets in order to try to encourage that. egypt does not have a lot of energy, but it has two neighbors, libya and sudan, who do. jordan does not have a lot of energy, but it has neighbors to do. the same with lebanon and turkey. they need more access. as difficult as the problems now appear, i think there is one area where we can make some

diplomatic headway and that is trying to get every country to act in their own self-interest and that is make decisions about boundaries, workout commercial arms-length transactions, no matter what else is going on in the neighborhood. do what you need to do to have a reliable source of affordable energy. that has been our position. thank you. [applause] >> thank you all. thank you for great questions. [applause] >> thank you all very much to my special thank you to hillary clinton for a very interesting

speech on a very important topic. i would like all of you to sit down, if you don't mind, until the secretary is able to leave. let me just make sure -- is there someone else who needs to make an announcement? >> yes. >> ok, i will leave you to make -- whoever it is -- to make the announcement and we will depart. thank you again. thank you very much. [applause]

>> coming up at 2:00 p.m. eastern, we will go to the pentagon to hear from leon petraeus and budget from leon panetta and holly petraeus. right now, a look at the senate race in connecticut between christopher mph and linda mcmahon, the two candidates will be meeting this afternoon in their third debate. >> an annual charity event that occurs here in manhattan at the waldorf hotel and it is run by

the archdiocese of new york and the auschwitz foundation, which is named after the former governor of new york who ran for president in 1928. it is a very big event. each is supposed to be -- the anc calls it the most important non-political political dinner in the country. host: what is the big deal tonight? guest: it has become a must-be- there event for candidates. it is a chance to come together in a non-confrontational way. they do give numerous speeches and poke fun at each other, but they also pocpoke fun at themselves.

it is supposed to be a break from the campaign trail and from the dashing and the commercials. we have another debate coming up on monday in florida. it is thus to be a chance to show a little bit of a detente. host: so each man will speak tonight? guest: yes, each will give a prepared speech. it will have some self- deprecating humor and some poke at their opponent, but it will honor al smith who was the governor of new york and a candidate for president, who was heavily criticized and attacked basically for his catholic faith. host: and he was one of our contenders as part of our contenders series that we did here on c-span, looking at those who ran for the white house,

lost but changed political history anyway, for viewers who are interested to go into the archives on l. smith. but tonight, have all presidents and candidates -- are they invited every year? guest: actually, going back to what you were speaking about earlier, regarding abortion, there have been some cases were the candidates were not invited to the dinner at all because of issues related to abortion could candidates were not invited in 1996. at that time, president clinton had vetoed a ban on partial abortion. in 2004, the candidates were also not invited. at that time, john kerry was the democratic nominee and he was of the roman catholic faith, but also supported abortion rights. it was not -- they didn't

exactly put out a statement, but that was the circumstance and the candidates did not speak at your at the dinner. host: what about this year? guest: this year, the cardinal did decide to invite the candidates. he got a lot of heat for it. there are a lot of people who say that it is completely inappropriate to have a president who has the stance that he has on abortion issues speak at a function that is associated with the church, but has to do -- but is related to issues of the catholic state. although, it is supposed to be non-political and non-hardison pin some -- non-person. some people have complained that mitt romney being there. there is a long explanation for

why he decided to invite them. he said, first of all, this is about the memory of al smith. he was somebody who, even though he had strongly held personal opinions about what he thought was right and wrong, he did not demonize the people who saw differently. and in general, it is better to engage people that have different views, rather than to shut them out, ignore them or turn your back. it is a way of fostering communication whether then region rather than emphasizing differences. host: how much money are they expected to raise? guest: $5 million to charities that benefit children. host: thank you for your time this morning. >> we will have live coverage of the al smith foundation dinner tonight.

surely, we will go live to the pentagon from -- with remarks from leon panetta. until then, a look at the senate race in connecticut between congressman christopher merc -- christopher murphy and republican linda mcmahon. democratic congressman christopher murphy and the republicans were off in a debate number 3. what is this race looking like? guest: there are several polls coming out in recent days, but the be administered one shows that mercy has about a six-point lead with a four-point margin of error. host: how closely are people watching this race and did they think it was going to be close? guest: people are watching this extremely closely in connecticut and in washington. about a year ago, national republicans are not giving this raised the time of day. but they will te you now that linda has run a very strong

campaign, and they think this is serious. host: this is the first time she has ran. is she running a different campaign than the last time? guest: she has a completely different team. one thing that is similar from the last time is she is spending a lot of money. last time she spent $47 million. i did not get the latest report, but as of august, i want to shut -- say she spent about $30 million of her own money. that is having a huge impact on this race -- she spent about $13 million of her own money. she is the former ceo of wwe, the professional wrestng company. host: what about chris murphy -- who is spending money on his behalf? guest: you have regular democratic donors but you also have outside groups. the most interesting thing about the spending is that national democrats have had to come in and help him and help keep them

in the game, a national republicans can step back and say she is spending the money so we can play elsewhere. the two main issues start with the economy, but the one thing in connecticut that is so much more apparent than elsewhere is the women's issues. murphy's camp has been trying to isolate mcmahon, trying to point her as an extremist on abortion and contraception. scheuble or -- label herself as pro-choice. about a year ago, republicans would tell you they wanted mitt romney at the top of this ticket. i do not know if it is that strong. obama is going to win this one fairly easy in connecticut. but the poll that came out this morning from the hartford courant, she set murphy was not

having an effect on obama. host: whether you're looking for in this afternoon's debate? -- what are you looking for? guest: i think there will be fireworks. there might be some sound bites surfacing at the natatatat >> again, that debate coming up this afternoon between republican linda mcmahon, and democratic congressman christopher murphy, the fourth time they meet for the retiring senator joe lieberman's seat. that will be followed by the virginia governor's debate. tim kaine and george allen will square off again. it is one of the closest senate races in the country. it will be live starting at 7:00 p.m. eastern, followed by a wisconsin debate between tommy thompson and tammy baldwin.

you can see that live at 8:00 p.m. eastern. live now to the pentagon for remarks from defense secretary leon panetta. >> nominate general david rodriguez to succeed as commander of the u.s.-africa command. general rodriguez currently leads u.s. armed forces command, and as i think many of you know, he has served in a variety of key leadership roles on the battlefield while serving as commander of isap enjoy command, he oversaw the -- joint command, he oversaw the coalition during the surgeon was the key architect of the successful campaign plan that we are now operating. he is a proven leader.

i will have more to say about service, butr's let me say this, under his leadership, africa has played a central role in the important missions, from the nato campaign in libya that led to the fall of khaddafi, to successful counter-terrorism efforts in somalia, yemen, and efforts we are involved in in nigeria, mali and elsewhere. the general has brought africa into a pivotal role in that challenging region. by and the nation are deeply grateful for his outstanding service. as you all know, last week in brussels are announced president

obama will nominate the six seeder of general allen, who will be nominated to be commander of nato supreme allied commander in europe. today, i would also like to announce that president obama will nominate lieutenant general john paxton to succeed g.o. as assistant commandant of the united states marine corps. the general has served in a number of key leadership roles in the marine corps, and here at the pentagon where he served as director of operations for the joint staff. he is an exceptionally capable leader and will be an outstanding assistant commandant of the marine corps confirmed. general rodriguez and general paxon join military leaders who have the plan to -- deployed to

combat theaters numerous times throughout their careers, and many have served in key leadership positions in iraq and afghanistan, and they are now leading the most experience and combat-tested military force that our nation has ever assembled. building on that perspective, it will be essential as we shape the force for the 21st century that we institutionalize lessons of war, and heavy innovative capability to deal with threats and challenges we will face in the future. also this afternoon i'm very delighted to welcome to the pentagon a true friend of the department of defense, and a dedicated member of our military family. holly petraeus leads the consumer financial protection bureau's office of service member affairs. that is a hell of a mouthful, but it really comes down to

this, she is leading efforts to ensure the financial health of service members and their families. holly petraeus knows firsthand the challenges facing military families in this and other areas. she has been an army daughter, an army spells, and remains an army mother. she is -- and army spouse, and remains an army mother. she is applying knowledge to help protect military families from unscrupulous financial practices and connected to the resources available to try to support them. the department of defense strongly supports these efforts. we are partnering with holly petraeus and her team because the financial health of our force is absolutely critical to our overall military readiness. service members and their families had unique challenges and opportunities when it comes to their personal finances.

they are often targeted by those who seek to profit from their unique circumstances. in may of this year, the department and the bureau signed a joint statement of principle, underscoring our partnership to protect the finances of service members, designed to help to monitor unscrupulous practices directed service members and their families, coordinate consumer protection measures, and strengthen laws related to financial protections of military members and their families. we are also working with the bureau to help enhance financial education for new recruits, and to provide relief for military homeowners faced with moving because of military orders. all of these efforts complement the department's personal

financial readiness programs, which provide military families a number of resources in order to make prudent financial decisions and facilitate access to the appropriate services and support. in partnership with the bureau, we are working to try to improve these programs and integrate them into broader efforts to enforce a ready force the problem here i might mention and holly petraeus will -- force. the problem here that i might mention is the number-one reason people you -- lose security clearance is because the financial problems, and that is something we have to address. we have added a financial planning seminar to our redesigned transition assistance program for those that are leaving the minister -- military, trying to incorporate

financial guidance as part of the effort when they come back. the seminar is an eye-opener for service members who need help in developing a long-term financial plan. it gives them the tools they need to resolve financial difficulties and try to achieve their post-military goals. today, holly petraeus and her colleagues are releasing a report on the challenges service members faced in repaints student loans. -- repaints to the amount. student loans are one part of the debt burden for those that are serving in the military today. indeed, in a recent survey of the force, 41% of service members reported that they are paying off and education-related loan. i am concerned that their report that is being issued today warren's -- warrens stood among

companies -- warns that student loan companies might not only confuse service members, but by late the law in the approach they take. we must never forget the men and women serving in uniform are willing to put their lives on the line to defend this nation. their service and sacrifice should not be made harder for them when it comes to paying student loans. because of their sacrifices, it should be easier, not tougher, for service members to be able to pay off their college debt. together, we must do everything we can to focus attention, benefits, and special protections available for service members with student loans. that is why the department is continuing to work with the bureau, the department of education and the department of justice to make sure military members know their rights, and

to make sure companies protect, not take advantage of these brave men and women under the law. so, now let me invite holly petraeus to the podium to say a few words and take your questions. she will be joined by chuck muslim, acting deputy assistant secretary -- chuck muslim, acting -- -- chuck milam. let me think -- take this moment to sit thank you to holly petraeus for her commitment to try to how men and women in uniform. holly? >> thank you, secretary leon panetta, for those kind remarks and for inviting me to the pentagon today. i appreciate your understanding that financial readiness is

essential to mission readiness. when congress created the service member affairs at the to the protection bureau, we have three central missions -- first, to see that military personnel and families receive the education they need to make better informed financial decisions. second, to monitor their complaints and respond to those complaints, and third, to work with other federal and state agencies and consumer financial protection measures for military personnel and their families. today's report, emphasized by our joint announcement with the department of defense, is a great example of how all three missions can come together to assist military families and ensure financial betting this. other agencies are represented as well, with senior staff from the department of justice and the department of education in the room. they have been working hard on education issues, and i have to

sit thank you for their concern for our military and their families. since i began this job almost two years ago, i visited almost 40 military installations, talking to senior leaders, service providers, and thousands of service members and staffers. i have had countless conversations about the financial issues currently impacting our troops. one thing i have heard repeatedly is to this -- service members are entering the military would student loan debt, facing financial and paper work challenges. one conversation with a young sailor stands out. he was just out of basic training and at an advanced school. he told me he entered the navy with over $100,000 in student loan debt and no degree. he joined the navy because he thought it was the only way he believed he could make it, but most of the paycheck was going

to those loans, and he was worried about what would happen if a financial emergency came along. this story is one of many that i have heard that many service members are entering the armed forces with and sometimes because of substantial student loan debt, and unfortunately they are not always getting the information they need about programs and policies that could help them reduce that debt significantly while on active duty. today is an opportunity for us to fix an issue that is impacting the financial readiness of the force and causing harm to military consumers. we need to be pro-active in addressing problems in the servicing of student loans for members of our military. we all saw what happened to military homeowners when mortgage lenders consistently failed to give them the protections they earned. according to the government accountability office, in recent

years there were 15,000 instances of financial institutions failing to properly reduced service members mortgage rates to 6%, and over 300 illegal foreclosures. it had taken class-action suits and government intervention to fix these problems. as a report released today notes, there are concerns with a similar problem of student loan servicing. i think the problem might be greater with student loans and mortgages because i believe many more young service members and tear at to do with student loans and a mortgage. a couple of weeks ago i held a town hall with 214 airmen at an airbase in wyoming. when i asked, more than one- third had some form of student loan? -- debt, significantly less were homeowners. here's what i have heard. service members are having

problems invoking consumer protection rights. they do not know about repayment alternatives and their services -- servicers are providing them with inaccurate or incomplete information about their options. they are confused about eligibility requirements for benefits that are so complicated that they either cannot figure out what they are entitled to where do not realize taking one benefit might exclude them from another more helpful one. this is not a matter of just a few dollars and cents. the young sailor i talked about with $100,000 in student loan debt could take nearly $25,000 extra if he does not receive his interest rate cap while on active duty. if he stays in the navy for 10 years but does not know about or use the repayment plan or the public service loan forgiven -- forgiveness program, he could lose out on nearly $76,000 he

could have cut off of his debt. that is why i am so pleased to be here to get the word god about military stood among protections and benefits. we we word out about military student loan protections and benefits. we also plan to push out the message through a variety of media to all service members. we want them to know that even if they did not know about or ask for student loan repayment benefits when they entered the military, it is not too late to do it now. i also want to take this moment to urge all in the student loan industry to be sure their policies and procedures recognize the unique laws that protect our men and women in uniform. no service members should be given the wrong information or forced to go round and round with their servicer to obtain the protections they earned their service to the nation. one final note, if there are

service members of student loan debt that are having trouble with their and servicer, i want to remember they can go to consumer finance.gov filed a complaint. now, i will hand off the microphone to chuck milam. >> good afternoon. first, i would like to think secretary panetta for his remarks, and mrs. petraeus, it is always a pleasure to have you with us. i would like to echo secretary panetta's comments and express my appreciation for the work the consumer financial protection bureau and the office of service number of fares do for all of our service members and their families. thank you do -- very much. we both understand that financial fitness is part of the overall readiness of our force in financial hardship can affect that performance. in a department defense survey,

service members have related finances as one of the most significant stressors, rating higher than deployment and personal relationships. we appreciate the work of the bureau in engage in financial industry on behalf of service members and their families, and highlighting the issue of student loan debt in this report. the department of defense considers that from any source a concerned and a potential threat to readiness, especially if not managed properly, as it could spiral of control and cause hardship. secretary panetta mention the department defense provides a wide variety of education resources and counseling to put service members and their families on a path to financial freedom, avoiding contracts and pitfalls. this report will better inform the education and counseling delivered to service members and their families to insure they are equipped with the tools they

need to make wise financial decisions in support of their financial goals. the first line of defense for financial education counseling for military families are the financial members -- managers. these managers hold a national recognized certification and provide on-site financial counseling, workshops, classes, and one-on-one service. those that might not live near installation, especially for the national guard and reserve, the sources available online through which they can receive free consultation. they also provide access to specialized consultation and the of the phone. in 2012, over 3500 were conducted over the telephone. that was a 50% increase over the

previous year. the department can also deployed counselors called personal financial counselors across the department of defense to support service members and families. fiscal year 12, nearly 2,000 ounces provided support and installations across the country. but the military jag advocates are also been able resources, especially when there are questions about college loans. when a service member is ready to continue formal education, installation and education service officers provide counseling they need to make sure they're making the best possible choices, economically and financially, as they pursue their degree. finally, the service member's

chain of command is always a valuable resource and here to help them to the challenges. again, the work is facilitated by the bureau and the service members affairs will help veterans form the education and counseling delivered by these entities. i would like to thank you to the bureau for their report, and reiterate the department's appreciation mrs. petraeus and her team. it is through our shared vision that we can help military members and their families face the challenges the thing may face. thank you for being here could >> their happy to answer questions. are there any? >> please. in the vein that you mentioned, you talked about a service member with debt. is that a failure for recruiters in not having a clear grasp of the attendees available with respect to recruits?

>> i think we put a lot on recruiters as it is. i am not sure -- they could probably be better informed than that will be part of our education effort. i think it is going to have to be multi-faceted could lead to be sure everybody is giving the right -- faceted. we need to make sure everybody is being giv the right message. we are going to put a piece in a delayed entry status about student loan debt, so hopefully that will help, too. yes, i think making sure recruiters have the right information can be helpful as well. >> would you rate this as a problem as a whole? >> we do not have a lot of statistical data for you. there is a significant number of military that have stood among bad. when we have compints -- student loan debt.

what we have seen in our complaints are some disturbing trends, and a lot of this is reminiscent of what we saw in the mortgage servicing issues. so, we want to be pro-active in getting out ahead of it, and not late for a lge volume of people that have already had problems, but to go ahead and take this opportunity to educate and hopefully nips some of this in the blood so that service members -- nip some of this in the bud. we want them to make better choices. >> it seems to me that you are saying the problem is getting worse. is there some reason for that? student loans are hardly a new thing. service members have insisted the loans would not be a new thing. what has happened in the last

couple of years that is made this come to a critical point? >> we have just seen the amount of student loan debt has gone to a frightening number in the estimates, and this is not just for military, but for everyone. they estimate is about $1 trillion of student loan debt. i think that number should be alarming in and of itself. >> reading the release, it is confusing to me, but what changes this? what can turn the corner for you? how do you turn the corner in the education programs for these kids? >> something is really making sure they are aware of what questions to ask, but i also think they are just getting flat wrong information from their loan servicer.

so, we have to apply pressure to the industry as well to say you need to be giving the right answers. some service members have been told when they ask for their interest rate cap of 6% under the service members civil relief act, they have been told that only applies if you're going to a combat zone. that is completely wrong. there is one provision that as a combat zone element, but it hasn't to do with the service members relief act -- that has nothing to do with the service members relief act. we need to hold them accountable when they are doing that, and get them to fix it, and also educate service members so they realize they're not getting the right information. if they still have no luck, we want them to complain to us so they can approach the servicer as well. >> the complete line he mentioned, how long has that

been running, and what is the average range of time it takes to resolve a complaint? what proportion of them are generally resolved? >> we open our doors to complaints in july of last year, but we did not start taking student loan complaints until march. i cannot give you statistics because i cannot be sure that i would be right, but when we get a complaint our initial approach is to send a letter to that financial institution saying we have received a complaint, and please respond within 15 days, and then we take it from there. we try to keep the service member who has complained apprise all the way along of what is happening so they do not feel like their complaint has gone into a whole. >> i was wondering, i know you say at this point out a lot of statistics have been compiled.

what are the metrics, or the outcome measures your bureau will look at to consider whether things have improved? >> that is a tough one -- net tricks -- you know, we have -- metrics -- we have a lot of economists and folks like that at the bureau, and i am not one of them. to me, the outcome i want to see is that every service member does loan information, or that gets better advice. we will keep monitoring the complaints, and hopefully it will decrease if people stopped having these problems. >> can you quantify how many personnel have lost their security clearance because of financial difficulties for student loans? >> you would have to ask the department of defense, but i know they are a number one cause

of security clearances being revoked. i do not know if they break it down to specific financial problems, but there is a logic to that. if someone has serious financial problems, it might be open to doing something they would not normally considered. this strongly reminds us that financial readiness is tied to mission readiness and if they cannot do their job, everybody loses. >> mrs. petraeus, is the gi bill involved in this at all, and what happened to the servicer, the lender who provides wrong information to the troops? what is son -- what is done there? the service member have any recourse? >> this particular issue is not really a gi bill issue. this is more concern instead of loans that that service members have accrued.

it depends on -- happens to the servicer, it might depend on what the violation was. if they violated the civil regis service members civil relief act, they can certainly take action on that. it is other servicing issues, we encourage people to file complaints with us, and we might be able to assist. if we see a real pattern, we can possibly take further action. >> our lenders making these mistakes -- are lenders making these mistakes primarily because of lack of knowledge, or is this willful, unscrupulous business practice? >> that is a good question, and we ask that when we saw the problems with mortgage servicing. i think there are a variety of

factors there. somebody into some of them by just the poor training. -- sometimes it might just before training. there is no way to tell what they are thinking. when we deal with is the other end, that they have given out bad information. >> a question for the secretary, actually. he spoke about military one, how does sequestration potentially impact these programs because i believe financial-services would have to protect for sequestration. >> we are all concerned about sequestration. secretary panetta has called a disaster is passed. that said, we will keep pace with military families at this

time. there are no reductions in those programs. >> including contractors? >> multi-sources. >> there are service members that come into the military with stephen debt, but among those that incur the crippling debt after they are in uniform, how -- can you address how that happens given the gi bill to which an assistant, and will never be prevented from happening? >> we have certainly been vocal on this topic in the past year. the gi bill and tuition assistance are generous benefits, but there are schools that definitely cost more than that. some services -- service members choose to go to those. if they do, we certainly want to encourage them as their first loan source to look at federal student loans.

income as a last resort to look at credits to the amounts were you have less in the where protections toyota i would also encourage them -- in terms of protection. i would also encourage them to consider whether this was so valuable to go above and beyond what they would pay. there are a lot of issues for sure. >> prior to a service member signing up for tuition assistance, they go through a rigorous counseling session, either in purpose -- person or by the online. with the president put the executive order, we have enhanced the measures, having to be more upfront about their cause garrett bauer -- costs. it includes a lower-interest federal loans available as well. we felt pretty good about the

program we have in place for service members they utilize the tuition assistance program. -- that utilize the tuition assistance program. >> thank you very much. >> thank you a lot. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> c-span is around the country of house, senate and governor's debates between now and election day. three debates for you today, all covered live, beginning at 4:00 with the connecticut race between the minuteman and democratic congressman christopher murphy -- linda mcmahon and democratic congressman christopher murphy. at 7:00, tim kaine and george allen square off in one of the closest senate races in the country. that debate from virginia tech university. that will be followed by the

wisconsin senate debate between former governor tommy thompson and democratic congresswoman tammy baldwin. this is the second time their meeting for the seat of retiring senator herb kohl. that is lighted, p.m. eastern. last night, democratic senator chris enjoy the brand debated when the long for the new york senate seat. it was their only debate. she was appointed to the seat left vacant by hillary rodham clinton. this took place in saratoga springs, new york. this is one hour. it's a good evening. >> tonight's u.s. senate debate

is being shown across the state, as well as across the country on c-span. let us introduce the candidates this evening. if the order in which they are standing in speaking was determined earlier today by a coin toss. please welcome senator kirsten gillibrand. [applause] and, please welcome attorney wendy long. [applause] we will begin now with 1 minute opening statements. >> this election is about who we

fight for. i am fighting for the middle class, for small businesses, our military families, veterans and our seniors. i'm fighting so that every child in new york has the opportunity to reach his or her god-given potential. as i travel around new york, the number one issue is jobs, but i know government does not create jobs. people do. that is why we have to release the entrepreneur spirit of small businesses, giving the tools they need. we need to award u.s.-based companies, not those that ship jobs overseas. i know we could see made in america again right here in new york. to get this done, we need to clean up washington. that is why it took on my own party with automatic pay raises and passed the stock act. we need to focus on transparency and accountability. i know we can bring people

together to get it done because in the senate, that is what i have done. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you for moderating this debate. i feel so lucky to have been born in the united states, a country where we are all equal in our rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. i'm so fortunate to get an outstanding public school education, and to serve as a top staffer to two united states senators and a locker to the u.s. supreme court. i became a partner at a law firm in new york. i am a wife and a mother of two school-age children. i have been through many tough times in my family, and many good times, too. i understand what is going on around the kitchen tables around new york. we are broke. we are overtaxed,

overregulated, and we have lost jobs. >> thank you for both of those statements. we will begin with the next question. answers will be limited to 60 seconds. rebuttals will be 45 seconds. re-rebuttals will be 30 seconds. the first question goes to senator gillibrand. the state department has been criticized for its handling of the situation in libya. we know there were multiple requests for security and it went unheeded. what could have been done to avoid this attack? what should be done going forward? >> the secretary of state,

hillary clinton, has done an extraordinary job around the world representing our values. president obama has taken responsibility for what happened in libya. my heart goes out to families of those who were killed in that terror attack. as president obama explained, we will make sure that we get to the bottom of what happened in libya. we will make sure that that terrorist attackers will be held accountable. he will conduct a full-scale investigation with secretary clinton to find where the failings and shortcomings were. as he has shown time and time again, he does not give up and he does not forget. he holds those responsible who must be held responsible. i have no doubt he will do the same in this case. >> we heard president obama say something that was clearly incorrect. he was saying for days and secretary clinton was saying for days that this whole thing in libya was spurred by this

amateur video. they did not say this was a concerted terrorist attack. ambassador rice went out time after time saying this, and i agree that it is time for ambassador rice to resign. would you agree that after she went out with this false story that she should resign? >> absolutely not. we know that there has been extraordinary turmoil in the arab spring. we lost lives. president obama has been committed to trying to strengthen democracy in the middle east. >> i know, but i am talking about this specific instance. we know this was a specific act of terror. he was tried to blame it on an amateur video. we know that is not the case.

we have got to get to the bottom of this case and figure out who knew what and when. >> we will get to the bottom of this. we will hold those accountable for the attack. this is the kind of issue that should not be politicized. it is the kind of issue where we come together and get to the bottom of it. >> i'm sorry, but we want to move on from this topic. >> the next question is for ms. long. you have criticized the stimulus, which is the centerpiece of the obama's recovery plan. do you think that government spending can never bring the economy out of the recession? >> i think that people create

jobs and that government does not create jobs. most of the stimulus was completely wasted. it was filled with hundreds of millions of dollars of corporate cronyism that went to companies like solyndra. all of that money came from somewhere. it came out of the pockets of taxpayers or it increased our debt to china. that is where the money came from. as president obama said, there were not as many shovel ready jobs as he thought. >> pay down the debt and the deficits and create a growing economy. that is what we are focused on. we are focused on small business. that means cutting their taxes and streamlining taxes. make sure the have the loans

that they need. we want to see made in america. rebuilding our infrastructure. build towns, roads, and water systems across our state. we need to refocus on building new roads and projects. i can tell you, we have tough choices to make. we can tighten our belt. we can cut spending. we have to do it precisely and carefully. we cannot have a "slash only" approach. >> can you suggest something that you would cut? she talks about cutting taxes and getting small businesses of the loans they need, but she has not done any of these things. what we need to get small business is going is to get the private sector to give them loans. her idea of getting a loan is taking money from taxpayers and giving it out to her favorite group.

the right way to make a loan is to go to a bank can go through a legitimate project. she has undermined the ability of banks to do that with the dodd-frank bill. >> we will move onto that. let me move on to another question. this is for senator gillibrand. the arrest of a new york citizen for allegedly trying to bomb a federal reserve calls for robust national defense and national security. we are weeks away from the fiscal cliff that would cut $55 billion a year from defense spending. what steps are you prepared to take to prevent that from happening if you think that is something to be avoided? >> there was a terror attack this morning in new york at the federal reserve. i have deep gratitude for the fbi and our police force.

once again, the have thwarted another terrorist attack. the reason why i disagree with my opponent's approach. i work hard with peter king and across party lines to make sure that a dirty bomb cannot attack. we want to make sure that our religious institutions -- >> let her finish. you will have a chance to rebut. >> we look for fat and waste in the program. that is why i did not vote for this budget deal. i believe sequestration will be bad for new york. it will cut the things we need most -- firefighters, police force, education. >> sequestration would be

terrible, senator, but what have you done to avoid sequestration? you have to decide which cuts to make. as far as i can see, you have not done anything to advance the ball in that. if i were representing new york, i would know what is going on. it would not catch me off of guard. in terms of the attack on the federal reserve, it will be important to make sure that iran does not get a nuclear weapon. we do not want nuclear weapons in the hands of any of the terrorists. that will increase what we already know are not only threats of terrorism, but right

here on american soil. >> the pledge you have taken, the tax pledge to never increase taxes, doesn't that lead to the kind of budget showdown that has brought us to the edge of the fiscal cliff? >> no. i agree with ronald reagan. we cannot increase taxes. the tax foundation showed new york is dead last in the tax climate. it is not the answer. the more we increase taxes, the more spending that follows. we need to cut. that is the only way to go about it. the tax system we have now is counterproductive. it is confusing. it takes forever. we need tax reform.

we definitely do not want to increase the overall amount of taxes we are paying. that is the nature of the pledge that i took. >> thank you. >> social issues. ms. long, you have called roe v. wade a horrible position. you also said that you believe abortion rights should be left to the people to decide. explain exactly what that means. also, do you believe that an update is needed for new york's laws which are antiquated and potentially dangerous for some of you wants to score political points? >> roe v. wade is universally recognized among most scholars. whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, if it were overturned, every state would get the law that they want.

>> would you advocate for the overturn of roe v. wade? would you like to see it? >> of course. it was a terrible constitutional decision. there was a lot of confusion on this. if it were overturned, the decision would return to the state. each state can decide what policy they want. i am pro-life. there is no doubt about that. i believe that every single human being from conception until natural death has the right to life. the includes elderly, the disabled, everyone. when i see that little picture

of a baby in the ultrasound, that is a human being. it is entitled to respect. that is up to state legislators. as i go around the state, i do not hear anyone talking about abortion issue. my opponent wants to talk about this issue because you want to distract from her terrible record on the economy. >> senator. >> i disagree with my opponent. i believe everyone has a right to make a decision about her productive rights and about her family and when she will begin a family. we have to fight for women's rights. this is not a made up issue. they introduced a bill that would debunk all of title 10,

which is the money spent on at- risk women. it would also redefine rape. they want bosses to decide whether or not employees should be able to have access to birth control. >> first of all, i am fully in favor of women's rights. i am a woman. i believe in women's rights. there is something else that you said that is completely wrong. no one is advocating making decisions about anyone else's

contracepting. no one is suggesting taking anyone's contraception away. the issue is -- will religious employers and religious institutions and other people's faiths -- and i have the faith that tells me that abortion is evil -- will i be forced to buy such a plan and offer it to my employees? this is a question of infringing the most basic liberty you have. >> fundamentally, if you support that, that will give any employer the right to deny any coverage that they have a religious belief that opposes it. a majority of women use birth control. to say that it is evil shows a

disregard for the building of a woman to make her personal decision about her body and her family. >> ms. long -- >> i just repeated what she said. that is all. >> as long as we are on this issue of the war on women, there is a war going on in this state. we have in new york assembly -- >> let's stick to the topic at hand. >> we will give you an opportunity to speak on the issues you want to go to. when you talk about -- when democrats talk about the fear that roe v. wade might be

overturned, doesn't that relate to fear mongering? >> i do not think it is fear mongering. this presidential nominee, mitt romney, said he would get rid of planned parenthood. his party has said that there should be no exceptions for abortions. no exceptions for rape, incest, for the life of the mother. that is a serious problem for new yorkers and many women that i know. look, these are fight and battles that my mother had and that my grandmother had. women of america believe that they should make their own decisions about contraceptions. they do not expect legislators to think that the bosses should make that decision. i am making sure that women are

heard in this election. women have to vote and hold congressional members accountable. they have to be heard. these are fundamental issues of all right. you talk about the war on women. mitt romney says -- it is an issue of fairness. >> you are completely misleading this audience and people who you say employers could decide what a woman could do with contraception. it is completely false. religious and players have the right to subsidize and what it will offer, it is completely -- >> employers do not get to pick and choose which laws they will follow.

>> we have set up a situation where government dictates your faith. do you know what will happen? >> look, this is a compromise that was reached in the new york state and signed into law by a republican governor for 10 years. i do not think that citizens believe their religious beliefs have been circumvented. i want to ask about the supreme court. make this a brief exchange. who is a model supreme court justice and why? format format she was the number

one proponent against sotomayor. i think she will make a tremendous justice and will have a long run. >> my problem with her is that she does not follow the constitution. we need people who will be modest judges and follow the law. i cannot believe we are sending -- the unemployment rate has gone up over the last year. it seems that all anybody wants to talk about is -- >> we will talk about economic issues some more. >> i admire many justices.

i admire justice stevens. justice roberts is a good justice too. the question is the approach to the law. did apply the constitution? our do they seek to impose our own political views on the bench. >> thank you. >> this question deals of the second amendment regarding second amendment rights. you support second amendment rights. you would want to protect the rights of hunters and sportsmen. explained why as semiautomatic is something gun advocates would seek to limit or ban?

>> that is not my only concern at all. i want to preserve what the second amendment says, which is the right to own arms. that is an individual right, like the other list of the bill rights. that is what i am concerned with protecting. it is for purposes of self-defense. it does all sorts of purposes. what i think it's amazing is my opponent, when she represented this area in congress, she told everyone she kept her gun under her bed. it amazes me how she can do this 180 flip. by the way, in the most basic

nra course, they tell you where to store your gun and it is a bad idea to put it under your bed. >> response. >> i support the second amendment and the right of gun owners. we have serious issues across new york. we have a gang violence and gun violence. it is deserving to sit next to a mother who lost a child to gun violence. it is inexcusable. what i have to do is make sure that i can protect our families. that means a common-sense reforms that keeps guns out of the hands of criminals. the biggest challenges we have is 90% of our weapons come from out of state. 90% are used by criminals.

what we have to do is keep those guns out of the hands of criminals. that is why i have written a piece of legislation that would lock down on them and should the law enforcement have the tools to track them. >> she is overlooking the root cause of crime is criminal. you did not solve this problem by hindering the rights of law-abiding citizens. the way to stop the gun violence is to apprehend criminals. criminals do not care what the laws are. they will find ways to get guns and commit violence anyways. all of these restrictions on the basic second amendment right of law abiding citizens who have firearms is not the answer. >> does to be clear regarding the change in the nra reading, did you change your ideology

between the time that you were a congresswoman representing this area and subsequently become a senator? did you do that for some other reason? >> my beliefs have never changed. i met with a family that lost their daughter. i met with a family that was experiencing enormous amount of gun violence and gang violence. i have to be able to protect those families. i have been outspoken on common-sense legislation that could be bipartisan. it is not about law abiding gun owners. it is about criminals. we need to give the law enforcement the tools to find them. >> ok. >> thank you. it is time for our lightning round. we will ask questions that can only be answered by words "yes" or "no."

both candidates must refrain from explanations or "maybes." we will start with senator gillibrand. should new york reinstate the death penalty? >> no. >> yes >> do you read books on your ipad? >> no. >> no. >> do you watch programs on pbs? >> yes. >> yes, but i could live without it. >> do you write your own tweets? >> yes. >> yes.

>> should cities and towns publicize the names of people arrested for patron niesing a prostitute. >> yes >> yes>> have you ever been . arrested? >> no. >> no. >> we're going to start with ms. long. would you like to be selected as a senate majority leader? >> would i like to be senate majority leader? sure. >> senator. >> yes. >> have you fired a gun within the last year? >> yes. >> no.

>> have you read "fifty shades of grey?" >> no. >> no. >> should there be a national ban on large sugary drinks? >> no. >> no. >> do you read political blogs? >> yes. >> yes. >> have you purchased a lottery ticket within the last year? >> yes. >> no. >> that concludes our lightening round. now it is time for cross-examination. you can ask your opponent one

question. response is 60 seconds long. >> congress is broken. if you are elected, will you break your pledge if there is a deal that has $10 of cuts for every $1 of revenue increase? >> that is a little bit of a false question. we could raise revenue in such a deal without amending the tax code. i am opposed to higher tax rates. what we really need is an economy that will grow. you can cut tax rates tremendously. you can reduce loopholes.

we have a pro-growth tax code. you can make more revenue. i think we should reform the tax code. it needs an overhaul. if we do that and we have a pro-growth tax code, we will see the economy grow and jobs created. that is a fantastic idea. >> ms. long, you can ask senator gillibrand a question. >> you have been an advocate for women's rights and transparency in government. i see this crisis in new york assembly in we have an assemblymen who is sexually harassing women in his office. this is a repeated pattern in this culture of corruption in albany.

and assembly speaker instead of trying to remedy it, instead took over money in taxpayer money and gave fresh money to keep these women quiet. this is a scandal. these young women were probably very idealistic. they are working in the state assembly and treated this way by someone in power. what i found outrageous is the actions of the assembly speaker to cover it up. why did not call for his resignation? >> the allegations against

lopez for sexually harassing his employees is outrageous. it is disgraceful. there is no place in the state for a boss to harass his employees. there has been a full investigation and why it was permitted to a confidential settlement when we have the facts from that investigation, we will know whether or not that was done improperly. lopez should have paid those finds himself. taxpayer money should not have been used. we do have to hold people accountable. that is why the investigation is important. he was wrong to not have done this in public. >> wasn't it wrong to use taxpayer money to cover it up? we know it was wrong.

>> we wanted one question and we got one answer. we will move on to some of our additional questions. this one is for senator gillibrand. the affordable health care, also known as obamacare. republicans are calling this a hit on medicare. is the reduction justified? what would you tell senior citizens about the reduction? >> i would reassure senior citizens that those were reforms that strength and medicare and medicaid. it takes some fat out of the system. the money was going to insurance companies. we want to streamline medicare and medicaid to make sure it will be there for seniors and the next generation of seniors.

these are the kind of reforms that matter. they strengthen our entitlements. at the same time, they get rid of fraud or abuse. >> ms. long. >> i'm sorry, but i have to return to the topic i was addressing. you said of the speaker that he should have resigned. there is taxpayer money to cover up the sexual harassment that was going on. how do not ask him to resign? >> there is an ongoing investigation right now to get to the bottom of it. with the speaker, it was a bipartisan call for him to resign for what he was covering up. >> there was an investigation going on with the speaker?

>> we'll move on to any question at this point. at this point, we know there is a hot presidential race going on. polls are tight. if president obama is reelected and you are also successful on election day, you will have to work with the president of the opposing party. can you please in one area where you agree with the president? where do believe you could work together to benefits new yorkers? >> first of all, i believe president obama has been the one who has not been willing to come have we work with people in the senate. he sent a budget that he knows no one will vote for. that is really the problem here. we're not seeing compromise from his side in the white house.

>> we do not know who will control the senate at this point. what could you work with him on a? >> if he is interested in reducing our deficit as he said he is, if he is interested in reviewing our deficits, i would work with him on that. i would be willing to cut any and all areas of the federal budget. i am talking about cutting spending right now. >> senator gillibrand, if mitt romney is elected, what is an area that you have of agreement with him? >> as governor, he fought for health care. >> we got that done. according to the supreme court, it is considered constitutional. it is something you could work with him on.

>> there are, and values we can come together on. when i spoke this on friday passed a health care bill, and reached across the aisle to make sure to help our heroes and protect them and help that they desperately need. we were able to repeal but corrosive and negative policy that undermines our military. i can find common ground with the senators. i would look toward president romney on where we can agree. we want to make sure that iran does not obtain nuclear-weapons. that is an area and where we can get along.

>> there are some jewish voters or remain unconvinced about the president, the current one, particularly when it comes to iran and its nuclear program. the president did not meet time to meet with that israeli president benjamin netanyahu. >> i know that president obama is an ally of isreal. we have worked side by side to make sure that iran never attains a nuclear weapons and is now reach the capability. all options are on the table. president obama and the prime minister of israel have a strong relationship.

they talk all the time. whether or not to make a meeting on a given day is not the measurement of their relationship. they are collectively working on sanctions and putting enormous pressure on the countries of that we can convince the i ran people to rise up against their leadership or to convince assad that he has to join the economic community and stop pursuing a clear weapons. i have no doubt in my mind that president obama is 100% allied with israel on security. >> this administration's policies with regards to israel is incomprehensible. our relationship with israel is at an all-time low. president obama is responsible for that. if i were the senator, i think a senator should stand up and be an advocate for israel.

it is clear we have not done it is real want us to do. i agree with secretary hillary clinton. we have to make sure that the military option is on the table. we have to make clear to iran that if they go ahead with an attack, they will meet with reprisal from us. they are still negotiating iran and it is not working. they are marching very close to that red line. >> rebuttal? >> i disagree. we are hand and glove with israel. president obama will make sure that america is safe.

he has on his commitment to national security. when he came into office, we were in iraq and afghanistan. he has been able to take on osama bin laden. we are out of iraq. he is making sure our country is safe. he wants to make sure that iran never obtained nuclear weapons. >> it is wonderful to kill osama bin laden, but we cannot rest on our laurels and take victory laps when the head of islam and terrorism is rearing its ugly head out the middle east. we saw this at the federal reserve today. it is still a dangerous world. radical terrorists still want to kill us. this is not the right direction to be going in by leading behind and letting the situation get out of control and letting iran to continue to march toward nuclear capability. then they will not only be able to arm themselves, but armed

terrorists. >> question for ms. long. do you think u.s. involvement in afghanistan was a mistake? should there have been a public deadline for withdrawal? >> it was not a mistake. we went in for a good reason -- to go after the terrorists who caused the 9/11 attacks on america in new york. we need disable al qaeda. that is our goal. what bothers me is that when the president initiated this, he did so with a timetable as well. it seems to me that his timetable has been politically driven and not driven by military reality our national security and the need to defend our country. the whole timetable has disregarded the recommendations of the general.

it is not for the purposes of winning over al qaeda. >> i believe we should be out of afghanistan right now. 10 years ago, we were attacked and 9/11 by al qaeda. they created a base of operations and training ground in afghanistan. it is important to take? al qaeda and their operations and take osama bin laden. we have done that. al qaeda has now become an international a remotely operated organization. the last attacks have taken place is from pakistan or yemen. today very al qaeda is left in --

there is ripe corruption in his government. we should not put our money in afghanistan. the threat has moved. we have threats in pakistan. we should have a counter terrorism approach as opposed to the capture and search approach. we need narrow, targeted missions against terrorism. that would be preferable. >> i certainly agree on al qaeda. we cannot limit our concern to afghanistan. i saw some of these people. we thought they were our friends when they were the freedom fighters and fighting the soviet union.

it is difficult sometimes to know who your allies are and who you can trust. i think there might be a limited role to continue to play in afghanistan and be more nimble. there are other places where we need to combat terrorism. >> senator, this question is for you. back to the economy. new york lost jobs while the eight years she was in office. what would you support and the believe fracking should be part of that mix? >> all in one minu? >> yes.

i can stand are unique challenges. i also understanare unique opportunities. whate have going for us is an inedible system with our private and public colleges. we have a great manufacturing tradition. where opportunities lie in manufacturing. we have biotechnology. we have ener technology. we have office technogy all across our state. that is why funding in research and development is so important. it is why we have to unleash the entrepreneurial spirit for all of our engineers and our ventures. that is how businesses c be created. that is where opportunity is. we need to see it right here in upstate new york. we have the tools and what it takes. that is what will turn the

economy around. >> you believe the future is in what might be called "clean tech." there is manufacturing that is not clean tech. is drilling something you would support? >> we have unlimited opportunity in by a fuel and wind and solar. we produce those technologies on those products right here in new york. we want to make a longterm investment there. it is a significant economic opportunity. what we need to make sure of before we start hydro fracking is to understand the facts. there are three things we need to know before i would be encouraging that in new york. first, what are the chemicals and formulas used? have there been any studies about the health of facts of those formulas and chemicals?

second, when you drill down weekly, when you bring the water back up, it can be read it active? you have to have in place an agreement on how you look clean and treat that water. third, when that is do, you can have wells that will deteorate overe. we have to require that gas companies will have a commitnt to dohe cup we do not have more in our state. one of the things we have going for us in new york is that we have clean drinking water. we relied on agriculture and tourism. we have to keep on having clean drinking water. >> two things -- first of all, the question was, what have you done to bring jobs back to upstate? the answer really is, nothing. as i go around upstate, i see

towns with and the store fronts and factories that have been closed out and paint peeling off of buildings and people desperate for work and desperate for jobs. your only answer to this is to introduce these things are called jobs bills. what they really are is taking money out of the taxpayer's pocket and handed it out to other taxpayers who are favored by you. jobs are created by people. they are created by the private sect. what we need is to cut taxes and cut regulation and absolutely get going with tighter frackingor natural gas. this has been studied. we have it happening. it has been happening for decades in ohio and west virginia. it is called the gold rush of west virginia. and the economies are booming. guess what? there has been no evidence anywhere that is polluting

drinking water. that is a phony concern. people need to get going with hydro fracking. it could spur a manufacturing renaissance in this state. we could get manufacturing going again. what we have right now as you go around the state, you will hear about plants closing and people being laid off. you hear about layoffs. >> can i respond to the first issue, hydro fracking? >> go ahead. >> you said that you believe the economic benefits outweigh the risk of methane in drinking water. >> there are no health risks.

>> to the extent that there are -- the concern i have is this, how much methane is too much in drinking water? how much to my children be exposed to? those are not questions on other should have to ask. yes, it is an economic opportunity, but before we destroy our clean drinking water, we shall make sure we have all the facts. we have a right to know those facts. by then we do not want to know the facts? that should be disclosed. why would do not want to know the facts? >> methane has been going through the water for centuries.

this little movie where you let a match and it burns -- that has nothing to do with fracking. >> i will sneak in one more question. i might cut you abruptly because we want to get to the closing statements. this is for ms. long. you oppose a the dream act. imagine you are talking to the many young people in new york. how would you explain to them why the country is better off if they were deported? >> i do not think they should be deported. immigration needs immigration reform. we need to do it properly by congress and not our an unlawful and unconstitutional act of the president acting without congress. the first thing is, we need to secure our borders. we need to know who is coming

in and who is coming out. once we secure our borders, we should proceed to immigration reform. we need to completely reform our immigration laws and come up with an orderly process to address the issue you are talking about. if people come here illegally and they have committed crimes -- if they are here and do not have family connections, that is another story. if there were brought here as a young person, it is correct to establish a path where they could gain a path to legality. >> senator gillibrand. >> i believe in comprehensive immigration reform. we have an immigrant heritage in new york. we need to make sure that a child to comes to this country

can have the opportunity for a college education and can serve in our military and have the pathway to citizenship. this is the kind of bill that would have common sense and have positive progress. >> sorry to cut you off. we have covered a lot of ground. it is time for closing remarks. you will have 60 seconds for both of these. senator, we will begin with you. >> i want to thank ny1 and ny1 news for hosting this debate. i want to thank ms. long for joining me in this debate. new york, it has been an honor to serve you. i want to continue to fight for middle class families. let's be clear, there is a lot at stake in this election.

it is a choice between moving forward or whether we will go backward. i know that new york will lead the way in economic recovery. to do that, we need to focus on our strengths -- our world-class universities and educational institutions, our commitment to advanced manufacturing, our great workers who can compete with anyone in the world when given a level playing field. i know that we can come together in this election and get things done. i know that we can do that. in the senate, i have done it. >> ms. long. >> i have been talking to people around the state. november 6 is not just an election, but an emergency. people sit around the kitchen tables all around the state. they know that we are broke. they want us to stop spending money we do not have.

they want us to reform taxes and affordable health care. they want to cut the red tape that is strangling small businesses. i hear people saying, we do not trust the democrats. they also say, we do not trust the republicans either. but i believe the greatness of america and the prosperity in new york is within our reach. we need to pull together and do it. i would be privileged to represent you and the state of new york and america. i ask for your vote on november 6. >> thank you. thank you for participating. >> we would like to thank you, skidmore college. thank you. goodnight from saratoga springs. election day is on november

6. national captioning >> a number of senate debates coming up live here on c-span. connecticut for a debate between linda mackman and chris murphy. this is the fourth time they're meeting to face off for this seat. and at 78 former exove no, sir debate in the senate race of virginia. that will be live from virginia tech university. that will be followed by a wisconsin senate debate. this is the second time they're meeting. this debate from the university of wisconsin's marathon county campus is live tonight at 8:00 eastern. while we wait for our live

senate debate a look at this morning's wash "washington journal." >> he is joining to us talk about the latest congressional connection poll which and here is the headline by a piece from yesterday from this poll. public would accept tax heights in debt deal. what did you find out? >> it's an interesting survey. we do these regularly and they're designed to get an idea on where the public is and we dig pretty deefment and in this set that appears in this week's journal we look at the fiscal cliff after they come back after the election which and we found out a number of things about the public. some of them contradictry and all of them which make for a

difficult atmosphere for congress in trying to cut a very complicated deal. we found that 2/3 of respond nts think the idea of these automatic cuts is a bad one, about 2/3 are much more likely to say they want a member of congress to compromise rather than stick by their principles and risk a deal. they're tough on certain issues, they're warry of cuts on entitlements. they're comfortable with letting the bush tax cuts expire on wealthy earners. >> host: let me dig deeper. this is what you found when you surveyed those on letting them expire, 55% said yes, put them on the table. 36% said no. were you surprised

with those numbers? guest: no. it's pretty consistent with what we've seen all year. people may become more jitterry and it will all be affected by who wins the presidential race because president obama is committed to letting those go up and mitt romney is opposed to that. but we weren't shocked by that particular result. host: then you asked them another litany of questions what should be part of a deficit deal. raising the eligibility age for medicare, 57% said no, 39% said yes. what do you make of that? guest: i think the thing there is a disconnect between the public and washington for lack of a better term. i think there is a broad consensus in congress and both

parties maybe more on the republican side about doing something in terms of medicare about getting that eligibility age up but there is more warryness about the country about that. host: when you asked them if there should be restrictions on spending for medicare and social security, people were split? guest: yeah, a little more split on. that i think that has to play out. if i had to guess, they will be more comfortable with cutting spending when it comes to reimbursing hospitals and physicians so we'll have to see on that one. host: we're talking about the latest congressional connection poll and surveyed those and asked them about what the congress faces when they come back during this lame duck. you've heard a lot about the fiscal cliff.

asked people out there what they want congress to do. we want to get our viewers involved in this conversation so call in now. and within this story were these two graphics about compromise. when it comes to the federal budget deficit, would you like law makers who share their views to stand by their principles even if no progress is made or commomp mice even if they strike a deal you disagree with. overwhelmingly, some college or less, incomes of 30,000 or less, incomes of $75 or more. they all said overwhelmingly they want some sort of compromise. >> yeah, i think that is the most encouraging sign that there could be a deal on this fiscal cliff question. if the public is giving their

members of congress kind of room to cut a deal and to back off some of the things they may have promised when they ran, that's more than likely to allow a deal. but again, you have to see when you get down to the brass tacks of what a deal would look like. and suddenly people who may compromise in the abstract may recoil. it's an interesting finding for now and we'll have to see when we get closer. host: then you asked if congress fails to get an agreement, who do you think should get the blame? and overwhelmingly the people you survade said all parties equally will get the blame. guest: i wasn't surprised by that. i think there say pox attitude with the public. when you dug even deeper and saw that they were more likely to blame republicans and congressional republicans than

president obama and less likely to blame congressional democrats than president obama. i thought that was interesting and that's the kind of thing that can change and it might be reflective of the determination of so many of the freshman republicans, soon to be sophomore republicans who came into congress really driving the agenda on capitol hill. we'll have to see. >> what is the take away on congress after they come back after the election and face these issues? guest: i think it's very tough because you've got a public in the abstract that wants compromise, in terms of the specifics, not as much. and they hate these automatic cuts but they are looming and i don't think there'stons of room here in terms of public opinion for congress to get there. there is some but not a lot.

i think if i was a member of congress i would look at these results quite seriously. host: gets go to our first caller. caller: i was wanting to find out earlier this morning i saw on cnn where president obama said that he would veto congress if they voted against going ahead with the fiscal cliff and going on and being objected to it. so i was wondering if you know about anything about that? and also will the republicans filibuster if if it comes up on congress? thank you. guest: tp caller asked about something very important which are tax cuts. let me set the stage for it which are these bush era tax cuts which lowered rates across

the board are scheduled to expire at the end of the year. now, that's going to happen automatically unless congress does something to stop it. and president obama says he wants to keep it for lower tax bract earners but let the rates go up for the higher ones. this sets up all kind of sen knows. you can match where they can't cut a deal until obama let's all the rates go up. and then pressures congress to just lower them for the groups he thinks should get them. that's one thing that could happen here. the filibuster doesn't come into play quite yet because these things are going to expire. and the question is can congress pass some deal to keep them from expiring? that may engender filibuster. if i had to guess what it's going to happen, and it's just a guess, i think they're going

to do some kind of extension again to keep rates where they're at and keep rates where they are and fix it after this session coming up. host: did call certificate refering to a front page article this morning obama to weld his leverage on cliff. if we wins election he may dictate terms of a by tart san deal and if he loses he could make sure tax rates rise before he hand over keys in late january. administration officials declined to say whether the veto threat will stand if obama loses the election. caller: my question is when is obama going to pass a budget? harry reid has never brought up

a budget proposal to this administration and it's irrelevant. they cannot run an administration without this -- they have to pass a budget. host: we got your point. have you to turn that television down when you call. guest: this is a frequent complaint about the u.s. senate where they're not passing budget which is is controlled by democrats. it's one that continues. now congress can and the government can continue to function, we still have national parks and the navy even without a formal budget getting approved. they just kind of kick the current spending down the road. and we'll see if they can

finally get to a more thoughtful and considered budget. host: caller from alabama. caller: good morning. how is everyone doing this morning? guest: good. caller: speaking of a fiscal cliff, i think one of the greatest compromises was done when they attached the southeast sequestration rider with the tax cuts. because the amount of revenue will be more than what's going to be coming for the sequestration so it will balance its out. after everything that's gone on for the past decade, 15 years, it's time for us to realize we have to pay the piper, every american, not just one or two. we should have had a war tax but we didn't. i'm 50 years old, it's time for

my generation to start paying for the bills that started coming in 30 years ago. host: so what is on the table is some sort of deficit deal that could hurt you? caller: right now i'm a disabled veteran. and social security. and with both of those and current investments of my own, i'm doing okay. unless they decide to whack one of those benefits that i worked for and served for. but other than that i'm okay. i was okay through this recession even though it destroyed me but i'm doing all right. host: do you own a home? caller: yes, ma'am. host: so mortgage home deduction, are you okay with

deducting that? caller: not at all. i own my home so i just pay taxes. guest: i think the caller represents common sentiment which is the public wants to see something done with the deficit. our poll was less concerned about the deficit than cutting entitlements and that was implied by the caller's statement because he didn't want to see his benefits cut. but i think those are pricely the kinds of programs that will be in the cross hairs during this fall. there is a lot of money on the table that congress is supposed to cut. host: how much money? guest: 1.2 trillion. 600 billion from defense, 600 billion from domestic programs. everybody says they don't want the defense cuts most everyone

doesn't want the domestic cuts. can they get to an equal number without it being an automatic chopping block thing and we're going to see about that. host: we go to ohio. democratic caller. caller: i was watching a recent cato institute program on c-span and one of the attorneys who had been on the simpson project made the statement that only six republican members in congress voted for revenue increases, one happened to be lugar who is leaving congress. it looks like nothing can get done with the current mix. i'm just curious about your opinion. guest: i think there are a lot of republicans and a shortage of democrats were on record opposing any kind of tax increase. i think some of it comes down to e man ticks can you cut a deal where you may not raise

income tax rates and probably lower them but get rid of deductions. can you have that tax reform simply fy indication but they get bogged down in the details. some people believe if that's the context, then republicans would be more willing to go along with these things that aren't seen as a tax increase but in some respects are. so we'll have to see. but i think the cato fellow was right there have been very few who have uttered for a tax hike if any. >> are where are the negotiations? guest: they began their work last year. they include come co-burn, mark warrener of virginia and others . they're hoping in their own bipartisan way to come up with a germ of an idea that can get

congress through this. but they haven't been able to agree on one either even though they've expressed a lot of intention to do it, they haven't gotten there either. and that's the fundamental problem here. everybody kind of agrees on the geel of deficit cut and the specifics are very difficult. caller: i was wondering what type of interest rate and how much interest do we pay on our national debt each year? and i they that's the biggest waste of money in government. we should not have any debt at all. guest: we've got about $16 trillion in national debt, how much interest are we paying on it? i forget the amount of the budget that's going to servicing that debt, it's pretty large, might even be as

much as a fifth or a quarter of the budget, but i don't know the figure off hand. what is interesting borrowing cost has been going down over the past few years. even as debt has sword the bond markets have been getting very low return. so actually we've been able to borrow money on the cheap. a lot of people are worried that is going to end and we're going to have to raise interest rates to attract them back and that would really mess up the federal budget more than it is. but for the moment, borrowing cost are fairly low. host: only 17% of tax returns have itemized deductions and mainly the upper income. when you ask people if those should be eliminated for people who make $250,000 or more what do they say?

guest: they were game for that. there was a majority who were comfortable with those deductions limited for high income taxpayers. and that ecos by the way, the romney position, the obama position came up the other night in the debates that you could have caps on some of the things like the mortgage interest deduction, and other kinds of deductions when you got to the upper bracts. so i think on that one there is some consensus. host: here is over sight on g.o.p. who asked on twitter do we need more cuts. the obama has cut $4.8 trillyore over ten years. guest: it depends on how you see it. federal spending percentage of g.d.p. is coming down.

but it's still a large national debt at $16 trillion. it's getting north of 100% of your gross product which most economist feel is a treacherous place to be, that's a lot of debt to carry. so i think very few in congress as they go in this session are of the belief we've cut enough. host: susenn north carolina. caller: good morning. i want to say i am a true independent because i hear these people call in and i think some are leaning more republican or democratic. but i did vote for clinton and when obama ran for office i did consider him but after researching his background, i did vote for mccain. i did change my vote on that. but i am so angry that

everybody always blame the republican for not compromising. and i don't get that when the senate house is controlled by democrat and they haven't passed a budget in how long, in the last six years. so i just get really angry that the media always blame the republicans for stuff. host: and we heard from administration official that is president obama is talking about what he might do on this so-called fiscal cliff in the lame duck. have we heard from republican leadership about what their planning to do on the fiscal cliff? guest: they don't want to see any tax unincreases to close these numbers. there were efforts before congress went out of session before the election to defer these defense cuts. and that's what they focused most of their energies on. in response to the caller, our poll does show --

>> you can see washington journal "washington journal" every morning on c-span. we go to connecticut for a u.s. senate debate. chris murphy and linda mackman are running for the seat of joe leaper man who is retiring after four terms. this comes to >> welcome to the ballroom of the hilton hartford hotel. we have chris murphy, democrat, and republican, linda mcmahon. the reporters for this event

include dennis house, kesha grant, and mark davis. each reporter will ask a question. each candidate hub two minutes to respond. there'll be an opportunity for one minute rebuttal for both candidates. our reporters will ask questions in sequence. i will intercede as necessary for clarification or to remind time limits. at that point, the format might be offered to allow each canada equal, but to reduce time to answer in the remaining time available -- each candidate equal time, but to reduce time to answer in the remaining time available. we want to make sure our candidates have time to address the issues. as a result of the coin

flip, the first question will go to -- >> when your last week on how you would protect social security will keeping program costing under control, you did not give any specifics. you said your colleagues would get into a room in a bipartisan way and come up with a solution. pretend this is that room. you have asked -- been asked, what are your ideas? >> thank you for that question. on social security, i will not support any budget that would reduce the benefit that our seniors are getting today. i have continued to say that we need to get in a room and put options on the table. there are several things to think about relative to preserving social security and

medicare as we move forward. all of these issues need to be put on the table. i won't talk about specifics because the demagogued. you have no opportunity at all to put new issues on the table to discuss them. there are many ways we can reform social security and medicare. we must do it. it is not sustainable going forward. i will not do anything to reduce the benefits our seniors are getting today. chris murphy has a voted to reduce benefits. he would cut benefits by millions of dollars to pay for the affordable health care act. that is not something i would do. we need to protect our seniors. we have made promises to them in social security and medicare. i will do nothing to reduce those benefits.

>> congressman murphy. >> they have saved money for retirement and an entire life. nick and barbara want to know what they're representatives will do if they get elected. will they ask seniors to bear the burden of save and social security? linda mcmahon is right. she has refused to tell people what she will do when she's out on the campaign trail. she has told people what she is in favor of doing when she did nothing cameras were on. she was speaking before a tea party groups and said, "i

believe in some provisions when we have this kind of legislation." i disagree with that. we cannot play games with social security checks. we need to fix the problem and not per hour senior social security risk -- not put our social security at risk. she says that she would get demagogued. but that is our responsibility as candidates, tell folks what we would do. i would support raising the cap on tax incomes. we ask the wealthiest to help. to say that i would cut money from medicare is just wrong.

i would use the money to make benefits stronger for seniors. the health care bill cut in half the amount that a senior has to pay when they go. that is what the health care bill is all about. >> ms. mcmahon, you have one minute to respond. >> mr. murphy has not been honest. he used part of a quote. you never read the whole thing. i have repeatedly said that i will not do anything to cut benefits to our seniors getting in today. and i will not. cutting millions of dollars out of medicare does affect benefits. medicare actuaries have said

that it% of hospitals will go out of business if those payments are not reimbursed again. -- 50% of hospitals will go out of business if those payments are not reimbursed again. >> it is difficult to understand what linda believes for social security. we have to take a few comments she has made on the record, like she did with the tea party group. other than that, you cannot get from her her priorities. on medicare, her ideas are even more vague. she repeatedly said that she would be open to paul ryan and mitt romney's plan to privatize medicare. privatizing medicare would be an absolute disaster for seniors across the state. it would put the entire system in the hands of the insured and not who had our best interests at heart. the privatisation would cause

been senior $6,000 more per year. i will fight with every breath in me. >> take a breath. our next question will come from dennis house. >> mr. murphy, if elected, this one-party rule will continue in connecticut. why day believe one-party control is good for connecticut -- why do you believe one-party control is good for connecticut? >> we have had a tradition in this state that republicans were different from what we see in washington today. unfortunately, the republican party has become radicalized. it has become a shadow of what it once was. i do nothing to have conn's interest at heart.

the republican party that seeks to the control of the senate would eradicate a woman's choice but to control decisions for our own body. the republican senate would have another round of tax cuts for the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class. republicans who want to take are the senate would do away with things such as funding schools in connecticut. and many of those issues, she holds the same positions as they do. i am proud of the fact that i have reached out across the aisle in congress. i have started a group called the center aisle caucus. it was a group of democrats and republicans working together to find areas that the two parties can come together on. we need a budget that cut spending at a greater rate than

he was willing to. i was willing to call out my party and my president when i think he is wrong. what i saw in washington was a republican party and a tea party that did not have to netiquette 's interest at heart. interest atut's heart. >> ms. mcmahon, it is your turn. >> look at the history of congress and murphy. he has had failed policies that have increased our debt and our taxes have gone out. food prices have increased. gas prices have gone up. wages are lower. everything is increasing. 170,000 people woke up without a job. the issues of this race are

about the jobs and economy. we need to send, i believe, senators to washington who have experience in creating jobs and have made in pacs. i know what it is like to lose everything and to have to come back from bankruptcy and to start all over again. i know what it is like to have a child and not have any hope for them. when i talk to people in connecticut, this is what is on their minds when they think about jobs. we need to make sure that our elected officials that are going to washington have that kind of experience. let's create jobs. that is what we need to do. we need to put people back to work. when we do that, we will get our economy back on track. i have a plan to do that. i have a plan that will cut taxes for the middle class and help our businesses. it will roll back burdensome regulations. it will cut spending.

we will have a comprehensive energy plan. we will drill for oil and natural gas while we try to invest in solar and biofuels. we will train for jobs and we have available. congressman murphy has no plan to put people back to work or to address these issues. what are we going to do to put people back to work? >> thank you. congressman murphy, you have one minute. >> i do have a plan. we have tried her plan. it has failed. we tried it under the bush administration. less taxes for millionaires. exploding deficit and less funding for our schools and infrastructure. there is nothing different from her plan the what has been tried and failed already. i want to do something different.

i want to concentrate tax cut on the middle class and take the money we would be spending and tax cuts for the wealthy and putting it into our families and schools and helping our kids we a little bit of a boost. there is a big difference between our plan in this election. that is what we should be talking about. i do not think we should go back to the same set of the economic involved the plan that he has talked about and has resulted in the emerging crisis we are emerging from. >> congressman murphy, every time it is time to talk about you say you have a plan, but you do not have a plan. i would like you to go through your plan. mine has six points. you can look at it. you can judge it. you can see what i stand for and what i will do. my plan is to cut taxes for the middle class and lower that tax

bracket to 50%. -- 15%. that is the [i would touch. the others would state- -- that is the only bracket i would touch. the others would stay the same. >> time for of the questions. >> thank you. we live in one of the wealth is states, yet we have one of the highest poverty rates. the think income gap is a problem? if so, did have a plan to close the party? and revise the middle class in connecticut? >> that is exactly what my plan was to do.

getting people back to work. lower taxes on job creators so that we give the uncertainty and they will invest and grow. reduce the business taxes from 35% to 25%. getting rid of the over burdensome regulation. regulations are hurt businesses. we need regulation, but we do not need or burdensome regulations. my plan is designed and geared to put people back to work. taxes for job creators need to be reduced. small businesses need to have certainty that they can hire. they do not know what will happen at the end of this year. will the tax breaks expire? will the all expire? it is a full implementation of the affordable health care act goes through, the tax increases

-- the taxes will increase. sequestration and, the fences -- defenses are worried about job losses. this is preventing our businesses are growing and hiring. the middle class will benefit from the tax cut. they will go back to work. small businesses will create more jobs. our economy will get done started and back on track. >> congressman murphy. >> she has is a recitation of idea that if you do taxes to millionaires and give tax breaks to businesses that you will raise that data. my mother had the chance to rise

herself up out of poverty because of education. we gave individuals at the bottom of the economic scale tools in which to succeed. linda mcmahon wants to solve the problem for the people at the bottom of the income scale by helping people at the top of the income scale. that is not what has made this country great. what has made this country great is investing in those people. we have to end the bush tax cuts for the wealthy. but half of that to pay off our deficit and the other half into education. we should be putting the money into our people whether it be job training programs or lowering -- investment in people and believing that they can do something great is what will close that gap. linda mcmahon has had the chance to do that, and she has not done it. when the state of connecticut

need for $10 million for a company to create jobs in the middle of the recession, she took that money and pocketed it. she laid off 10% of the workforce will making millions of dollars. that is what exacerbates the income gap. 6 and ended of tax credits and disadvantages of the workers -- she takes advantages of tax credits. i support education and job training. we need to grow the economy from the middle out and not from the top down. >> you both mentioned the middle class. can you define what the middle class means to? how do you define middle class? >> as part of my plan when i reduce the 25% -- the 35% to a 25%, i am looking at the portion

and records in them as a middle class as part of my plan. congressman murphy, my plan is not a tax cut for me. it is a tax cut for the middle class. the other brackets stayed the same. we need to reinvigorate our middleclass. let's get small businesses working. i know what it takes. i know how we can grow when you have certainty to invest. he is now part of the free- market. he is a politician. we do not want to send the same people to washington to fix it. >> thank you. mr. murphy. >> i think families trying to struggle to make their budget

work every month would be in trouble if they missed a couple of paychecks. that is the middle class. mrs. mcmahon is wrong with the ideas that expand in the private sector qualifies you to be a united states senator. you need to know something about creating jobs. when you have made the choices that she has made to pocket our money and then lay off workers, the show that you did not necessarily have the values that it takes to be a united states senator. ultimately, her plan could drastically cut funding for education. i think we need to go the other way. we should be making investments in our schools and colleges and to make more little girls like my mother to make the american dream. that is what creates real wealth. that is what will shrink at wage gap. >> thank you. the next question is from mark davis.

this will go to chris murphy. >> as hard as my colleagues have tried, i have heard the same stuff for the previous 20 minutes. let's try something else. most of the people i hear from are fed up with your advertising. what they do not seem to realize is that the radio and tv broadcasting stations have no power to veto or edit your advertisements in any way under federal law. it is of the opportunity to legally lie on radio and television. would you support a repeal of that law? >> i did it would be a great benefit to the people of connecticut the state of to the trees. it seems like almost every other week we are picking up -- deserve to hear the truth. it seems like almost every other week we are speaking of these

ads and they are misleading. i am proud to be running on tv right now and talking about my job record and the work i have done to create jobs with the building of a new rail line and how i have been able to put it is back on a job -- teachers back on the job. i also understand i have to talk about where linda mcmahon aren't different. -- are different. people need to know that i support a woman's right to choose. linda mcmahon sides with the right wing. i do think we need to tell the story. ultimately, something else besides the amount of money they

need to run in a campaign, obviously, in the end, it is not the tv commercials that will win out, but our ideas and values that we hold. people will see that. i am proud to talk about my record on tv, but i think we have an obligation to talk about our opponent. >> so you do not support an appealing and the law -- repealing the law to allow stations to edit? >> mrs. mcmahon. >> there are instances where they are allowed to take on the ads if they are false.

we can look and note that congressman murphy has to own up to his own actions. there is a way i believe that we can communicate to our voters and be out talking with them. andthem look us in the eye ask the tough questions. believe me, i have been all over the state. voters are not shy about asking you about what you will do or what can you do for me? a woman came up to me and said, i lost my job. i am working two jobs to make ends meet and i cannot do it. a mother looks at me and says, and gas prices are so high i am having to choose which

activities to take my kids to. these are of the results of the failed policies of congressman murphy of the past six years he has served in congress. he has voted to raise the debt ceiling six times. our debt has more than doubled. he says he will cut taxes on the middle class, but he has raised taxes on the middle class. look at congressman murphy's record. he only does one thing in connecticut and does another thing in washington. we need job creators that will deliver for the people of connecticut. >> you also don't support the repeal, in other words? >> no, i would not vote for that. -- she is right

that it is important for us to get out there and talk with people. linda mcmahon has been reluctant to do this and go out to reporters. you can see why. when she does, we start to see what she really stands for. we start to hear about these plans about social security or to support the privatization of the medicare. you start to see her at the meeting last week that she would oppose connecticut law-madated contraception for rape victims. i want to do something different than what we have done in the past. i want to make sure we invest in the middle class and in the rich. i am willing to talk about that in any form. >> mrs. mcmahon. >> congressman murphy, i am

waiting to hear about your plan of how you help the middle class and put people back to work. you have not come forward with any kind of plan. you continue to talk about your record. your record is a plan. >> i have been talking about my plan all day today. >> your record has been to raise taxes on the middle class. your record has increased our debt. it has more than doubled. your record has increased gas prices and food costs going up and wages going down and more home foreclosures in our state. we cannot afford six more years of him in washington. >> next question. mrs. mcmahon. >> mr. murphy has suggested that if republicans gain the majority

in the senate, women need to look out. many abortion proponents, including a top leader of an organization, say that they will vote for you. voters are confused about all of this. how do demonstrate and approve to doubtful voters that you truly are pro-choice? >> i have said from the beginning that i am a pro-choice candidate. that has not changed. i am a woman. i have a daughter. i have three granddaughters. i do not want to take any action that will be harmful to them on their health choices. those are the choices they should make and not the federal parliament. congressman murphy has top row where i am on this issue. i am pro-choice. it is important that we have

health care in place for contraceptives and mammograms. i provide those are my company. i am proud of the record i have. i will do nothing that will impact the health and well- being of those closest to me, especially my daughter and my granddaughters. to say that i would do anything differently is ludicrous. i would support can netiquette's la for emergency contraceptive. foronnecticut's law emergency contraceptive. >> nancy keen and the head of the leading pro-choice group said linda mcmahon is not pro- choice. a man is voting for linda

mcmahon because her election could lead to the overturning of roe versus wade. you cannot say that you are pro- choice while supporting things like the fourth amendment, which would take away from women the ability to purchase contraception. but you cannot say that you are pro-choice and then be open to voting for supreme court justices that would overturn the very law that provides access for women to full preventative health care benefits of. i am a pro-choice advocate in this state. i went to the state legislature to fight for connecticut. i stood up as a member of the committee that wrote the health care bill to enact a provision that would establish women's health care in each of the important women and health agencies and. this is personal.

my wife was ahead of the connecticut's pro-choice organization. we have spent much of our lives fighting for this cause. linda mcmahon is not pro-choice. she continues to support laws that would undermine access to preventive health care for women. she might be the 51st vote for anti-woman tea party vote. >> you talked about how hard you fought. when you were at the state senate, you were cloture of a committee. -- co-chair of a committee. you would not bring it up for vote. you say you worked for that, but when you were running for congress, you let that bill

died. i am a pro-choice candidate. what hurts women more today is the fact that they do not have jobs and more women are in poverty. we need to make sure we get them back to work. those are the issues that women in our state are talking about most of all. they want to ensure they can continue to provide for their families. they need most of the economic decisions and their all. they want changes. they want jobs. the want economy to get back on track. they want to make sure their husbands will have a job. they want their kids to have jobs when they graduate from college. >> mr. murphy, one more minute for you. >> linda mcmahon is not telling the truth when she says i let the bill died. and ever advocate who was pushing for the bill, i was the support for it. linda mcmahon opposes making sure that every woman in the

state whether the walk into a secular hospital has access to emergency contraception. part of the reason why then there is some support from me amongst women is not only the positions taken on the issue, but linda mcmahon's treatment of women in the business that she ran. she demans women in -- demans women in the ring. >> thank you. dennis house, you have the next question. it does to congressman murphy. >> you are pro-choice. windy believe life begins? -- when do you believe life begins? >> i do not think government

should get in the way of that decision. i know that people have different beliefs on that subject. ultimately, that decision about whether a woman goes through the painful choice is ultimately hers andter dr. -- is her doctor's. the republican party is trying to take that choice away from women. we are one vote away from the supreme court from getting them removed. i do not think ultimately that is the way to go. i will fight with every last breath to make sure that the women of this state have the ability to make that decision on their own. i will fight to make sure that the supreme court does not have enough votes to overturn it roe v. wade. that is a commitment of mind.

it is different than the commitment of linda mcmahon. i think life begins at birth. i support our current law that restricts a lay term abortion -- late term abortions unless the mother's life is at stake. >> congressman murphy and i have a great deal of disagreement. i am absolutely pro-choice. i do not think the charge should be made by the united states government. -- i do not think the choice should be made by the united states government. i am absolutely opposed to a partial birth abortions with the same copy of backed congressman murphy -- with the same caveat of congressman murphy.

i will not support my party in repealing this law. i am independent speaker. withll not always avote party lines. congressman murphy has voted with his party a majority of the time. >> windy believe life begins? -- when do you believe life begins? >> i also believe that life begins at birth. >> when you look at these issues that are critical to women, it is hard to see the differentiation. she will not of the line at opposing supreme court justice that opposes roe v. wade. she will support mitch mcconnell to be her party's leader. he will stop at nothing to stop

a woman of's right to choose. she will and the contras countries of the coverage for women. -- she will end contraception coverage for women. her -- people do not believe that it is approaching its record. they see my record for standing up for women across the state. if you care about protecting the woman a's right to choose, there is only one choice in this campaign. >> mrs. mcmahon. >> congressman murphy continues to mischaracterize what i say. i have said that i support connecticut's for courtesemergey are deceptive. -- contraception.

women have lost their jobs. more of them are in poverty. more of them are looking for ways to sustain their families. they are worried. they want to make sure our economy will get back on track. the discomfort is to know that our economy will be sound -- the greatest comfort is to know that our economy will be sound again. this is the primary issue facing women today in our state and as well as our country. we need people to go to washington and get our economy back on track. >> our next question will come from kesha grant. >> we have seen the campaign ads. this race has become vicious. it has become personal. when we look at your campaign ad, are you ever embarrassed of this? >> i think we have a great cross

section of our ads on television. it puts forth might positioned and also contrasts with congressman murphy pose a position. when there are issues where he has not been forthcoming, we should draw the attention to the people of connecticut. he had an ad that was a running that talks about -- and this ad was -- it had a picture of another countries submarine and not an american submarine. for the people, it was very hurtful. you need to have honesty in the ads. the purpose of the ads is to create, i believe, but to inform the public about what our positions are.

i have had ads that have talked about might brands and how we will put people back to work. -- about my plans and how we will put people back to work. it is the primary issue in this a race across the country. i talk about my plan and contrast the fact that i want to lower taxes on the middle class. we will have contrast on the ads ago on television. i will continue to communicate my position with the people of connecticut. sayingsorry, so you are you are not embarrassed about any of these ads? >> no, we are communicating our message to the folks of connecticut. >> are you embarrassed about your own hands? your own ads?

>> i thought i would get off easy. our campaign ads show you how little she wants to talk about the issues. linda mcmahon's ads have been vicious and personal. they have been directed at me, my wife, and my family. when i run ads, i talked about the differences between linda mcmahon and i on our professional background and our ideas for the state going forward. i am not running ads attacking her and her family in a way that her ads have attacked me and my family. her campaign was asked at one. after a month of hitting hard and dishes adds, why do you not talk about issues? her campaign said that would be a senseless exercise. it would be a senseless exercise for her campaign.

we need to be talking about the differences between the two of us on the issues. thought that was one minute. >> he has a few more seconds. >> sorry. i do not want to be like mitt romney and complain about the debate rules. we have heard tax policy and supported education. we do have a major difference. alternately i hope that the last two weeks of this campaign are on those differences -- i hope that the last two weeks of this campaign are on those differences. people see that linda mcmahon stands with a right-wing

ideology. >> we have replaced the batteries on our clock. mrs. mcmahon, you have one minute. >> i keep asking congressman murphy to talk about issues. you keep hearing "linda mcmahon." you do not hear what his plan is going to be to put people in our state back to work. you do not hear how he is going to grow the economy because he does not need to talk about his plan. we do not have a solid economy. we have higher taxes. debt has doubled since he has been in office. we cannot afford six more years of his failed policies. >> congressman. >> that is not true. we have lowered taxes.

i do talk about my plan. no matter how many times he repeats it does not make it true. repetition does not equal voracity. my plan is rooted in a middle class tax cut and that end of the bush tax cuts. we need to have new energy security in this nation so we can be the world in energy. we need to put construction workers back on the job. we need to educate the next generation of business creators and job creators across this country. my plan is investing in the people in the state. no matter how many times linda mcmahon says i do not have a plan does not make it true. let's talk about the differences between our plans. let's talk about the issues that matter to the people of connecticut. >> thank you. mark davis, a question from the dome for congressman murphy.

-- from you for congressman murphy. >> this question came from a colleague of mine at abc news. let's see how you do. can you please say something nice about your opponent? [laughter] >> not sure if i will need the full two and ads for this. -- minutes for this. linda mcmahon is a driven person. when she sets her mind to something, she has shown that she can accomplish that. she has over the last several years made some substantial investments in connecticut charities. that has done some good things for people. i give her credit on both of those accounts. you are right. these campaigns tend to be very personal. i think people are tired of

these. people want it to be bought issue differences. they are sick and tired of the campaign's being personal. they see that extended over and to government. is he washington do nothing but fight while they are trying to find a way -- people in washington do nothing but fight while they are trying to find a way to get along. co-workers try to find a way to get along. they do not see that happening in washington. i decided to stop complaining about the personal politics. i decided to try to do something about it. democrats and republicans should come together. i get it. it is not revolutionary. we need to let people to

washington who will start working on bringing the two parties together. i am proud of the work i have gone in the house of representatives. i want to do more work in the senate. i am happy to admit that there are definitely some nice things i could say despite our disagreements. >> mrs. mcmahon. >> the best thing about congressman murphy are his two little boys. they are so cute. i am a grandmother. i can imagine the pride that he has in watching them every day and want to have the best for them. i noticed this about congressman murphy and his little boys. i congratulate him and his wife for having such a nice family. i am sure that he would like to make sure that the future for those young boys will be bright and have even better opportunities he had an for the

next generation to come. that is why i am focusing so much in this based on what is wrong with our economy today. i will keep going back to it because it is what is pulling down our middle class. that is why i won a tax cut for the middle class. i want to make sure that his little boys, my grandchildren, have the same opportunity in america to succeed. that is what this race is about. i wonder if my grandchildren will have the same opportunities that the grandfather had what our debt was under control and when we were spending more than we are making. i do not want that to be our legacy to them. i won my legacy to them to be that they have the american promise for opportunity -- i want my legacy to them to be

that have the american promise for opportunity in. i remember when we lost everything we had and had to file for bankruptcy. we had to start over. we were able to because of the opportunities this country offered us. we want to make sure that children have the opportunity. >> chris murphy, you have another minute to say nice things. [laughter] >> i appreciate that, mrs. mcmahon. we are really proud of them. i do not take a lot of credit for how wonderful they are. i give the credit to my wife. my reason for running it is rooted in those same stories. my mother rose to the middle class from poverty in. -- poverty.

mrs. mcmahon and i just disagree on how to do the. i think you need to support education and job training. support in like public housing and programs that can make their families whole. our rationales for running is similar, but we are different and how to make that change. >> mrs. mcmahon, you have one minute is a warm and fuzzy things about congressman murphy. [laughter] >> we do have a different philosophy. his philosophy is one of bigger government and more government control. mine is about private sector investing. i am for a tax cut for the middle class. i would keep the other tax brackets the same.

we need to get our debt in line and our economy back on track. it does not happen by the regulations that have passed in washington. it happens by encouraging our middle class and let our job creators and our small businesses flourish. our economy will then grow. as long as we state so in debt, we will not come out of this -- stay in debt, we will not come out of this recession. >> thank you. we are getting close to the end of the hour. we will switch things up a bit. i will ask you a question. each of you have one minute to answer and one minute rebuttal. foreign policy. this will go to mrs. mcmahon. a governor went to china recently to discuss business for

the state of connecticut. but there are a lot of people who complained about china policy influence in the world, geopolitical and economic. do you see them as an ally or a rival to the united states? >> this is relative to china and businesses in our state. china is our fifth export in connecticut. i do think the chinese need to respect our intellectual property laws, which they do not. they take our products and manufactured a similar version and sell it at cheaper prices. we cannot allow tried to manipulate its currency. -- we cannot allow china to manipulate its currency. >> congressman -- ally or rival?

>> both. we have let china get away with murder when it comes to policy. the currency is manipulated. we should call them out for it. this is critical. the federal government is outsourcing our own work in the department of defense to chinese companies. we need to stop that and keep jobs here at home. listen, i think our histories are not relevant here. linda mcmahon has outsourced roadwork act wwe to places in china. -- outsourced work tat wwe to

place is in china. >> he talks about this, but i have been around our state. i have talked to companies who are threatened with the knockoffs that china does. hey're finding that they are painting those products and sending it right back. we need to make sure the and not manipulating the currency. we need to make sure that they are not infringing on our intellectual property. we should use them as a trading partner, but we do need to have fair trade. >> congressman, you have one minute also. >> she has this line that i voted against the measure. i voted for the amendment. she attacks the on this issue because she does not want to tell you that she does not believe in the measure.

she does not believe we should advance connecticut companies with taxpayer contracts. there are companies right here in connecticut who are losing jobs as we speak because we do not have people in congress who are standing up for american laws. there is 600,000 jobs in this country that could be created if we had stronger laws for those workers who are desperate for a paycheck. that is not a slogan, but a solution. >> very good. we had a separate coin toss earlier on the issue of closing statements and order. the result of the coin toss is at the first closing statement will come from linda mcmahon. >> thank you for joining us today. the voters of connecticut will have a choice in november.

it is a choice between someone who create jobs and has plans to and best for you and some was never created a job and has no plan for those people who are out of work in our state. this is the most important issue in this election. you'll have a choice between someone who cannot be bought and between someone who has already taken special interest money. my opponent is to hold public office. i will make sure that our kids and grandkids have a better opportunity than we did. i am asking you to make history in november and the first woman from connecticut to sit in the united states senate. i am a woman that cannot be bought. i will work for you. i am linda mcmahon. i am asking for your vote on november 6. >> congressman murphy. >> my parents taught me that if

there is a fight that matters, you cannot sit on the sidelines. i have dedicated myself to fighting for the middle class. i fight for tax cut for them and standing up for a manufacturing jobs. i have been in the middle of some of the biggest fights that have mattered in the state. what makes the contest between me and linda mcmahon so clear is that she has not only sat on the sidelines, but she has made things works. she has outsourced work and selling sex and violence to our kids. linda mcmahon has never been there for us, but i have. i hope i have lived up to the challenge that my parents laid out for me. it would be my honor to continue that work as your united states senator. >> thank you. we hope this debate has how the voters as they ponder their final decision in this election. we urge you to vote on election day.

i want to thank our candidates chris murphy and linda mcmahon panel.r reporter catt and of course, the hilton hartford hotel. thank you for being with us. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> more live senate debates coming up tonight on c-span.

republican george allen and democrat tim kaine. mr. allen and mr. kaine are both former virginia governors. mr. thompson served as wisconsin's governor. and i will have live coverage tonight for both president obama and mitt romney. both will speak. it was in 2008 that mr. obama and john mccain talked about their debate. their debate.